Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Well, as you say, whatever it "feels" like it is something we don't want. That describes an immortal soul that is going to "feel" whatever it really is ...... forever. I have no problem taking the text at face value, unless there is a good reason not to, such as apparently contradicting other scripture, or an obvious parable, or a violation of reason. I am unaware of any contradicting scripture, or parables, or violations of reason in the verses encompassing our discussion.
You are too busy reading literally what's in the Bible. These are allegorical references to heaps of fire of Jerusalem garbage dumps, to burning sulfur lake, to cold and desolate place where the warmth of God never reached (outer space where the temperature approaches absolute zero?), etc. The common thread to all is true and clear: Hell is hell!
But other than the summary quote "darkness is where there is no light", what IS hell? How can there be a clear common thread if all of it is allegory that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways? I listed when I don't take the text literally (there may be other times), and none of those applies here. How do you know when to take the scripture as allegory and when not to? I'll bet it is whenever it disagrees with the consensus patrum, or whenever you just plain disagree with it. :) In these cases, passages in the Bible can be declared as an allegory for absolutely any outcome desired. So when you say "Hell is hell", that could mean absolutely anything. Apparently, men that you trust chose it to mean something not nearly so terrible as the text of the Bible describes.
I think it's really dangerous to just write off the text to allegory and preach that "we just don't know, it's probably pretty bad, but who knows". I am also at a loss to explain the possible motivation behind this. Normally I would think that a "brimstone" approach would help to consolidate power within the clergy and hierarchy. Such is critical to the life of the Church. But here, there appears to be a laissez-faire attitude about what the laity thinks about hell. I am reminded that Orthodoxy has its own definition for sin. It's really not the commission of evil, it's just missing the mark. I think that's the same attitude the Protestant pastors I recently criticized would have.
Are you kidding? Christ revealed ALL the news meant for us from Him, not only the good. How can anyone appreciate what the Good News means without a clear understanding of what the bad news is? He cannot. How many lost people do you think are walking around out there simply because they do not perceive any need for God? Dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions, more? I'd say it's more. One of the main reasons they don't or won't accept the Good News is that they have no comprehension of the bad news (by God's design of course :). This is why I think it is so dangerous to sugar coat what hell IS and MEANS. If every person had a clear understanding of the hell that is portrayed in the Bible, there would be VERY few unbelievers.
It's an optimistic and joyful religion, FK. I highly recommend it.
"Optimistic and joyful religion[s]" are what Warren and Osteen preach. Instead of that, my pastor preaches a personal one-on-one relationship with Christ. Optimism and joy are wonderful and Godly things, no doubt. But when they supplant the truth of the word of God, then it becomes false teaching.
My very vibrant full-of-life church has rejected labels as misleading and in fact restrictive.
My pastor constantly says he likes and prefers to use the term “spirit-led” — and indeed I believe that’s what it is.
And that suits me just fine, as each week we delve into the Bible, both Old and New Testament where the message never ceases to amaze.
(I was brought up in a strict Baptist Church, and my current church was at one time labeled Pentecostal, although no one refers by that, I don’t think.)
“”Optimistic and joyful religion[s]” are what Warren and Osteen preach.”
FK, you know those two aren’t Orthodox nor do they teach Orthodoxy. That said, Orthodoxy, for all its ascetical and liturgical rigor, is remarkably joyful.
That is the very same attitude which gave us the inquisitions... the jailings of 'non' Catholics for doctrinaire reasons, and the heavy handed tactics which was used by the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries.
I certainly don't hold that against any Catholics of today, as those acts were perpetrated by men, not the Holy Spirit.
I love my Catholic brothers in Christ, and believe them to be genuine Christians.
Alamo-Girl — you are brilliant, and have made my day!
Thanks for the mid-week ‘sermon’, so to speak.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to tell us what the correct meaning is in English instead of simply telling us we're wrong. I am sure there is a way to correctly translate this word.
But this does remind me of the same situation we get into with the Catholics over the word "venerate". We say venerate means worship and they say we're crazy; we don't know what we're talking about because the Latin word doesn't adequately translate into the English.
I pity all those non-Greek Orthodox priests who can't truly understand their doctrine as much as I pity those priests who've lost the ability to speak Latin.
Yes. God is not a source or cause of wickendenss. Can God lie? God did not predestine wickedness.
The Jews and Greeks believed that "Shoel" or "Hades" is a place below the surface of the earth (the "underworld"). Do you believe that hell is a "place" below the surface of the earth as the OT seems to imply?
Do those who die in sin have life? Is life something we have on our own or is it from God. When a partient is maintained on life support systems and is then disconnected from that which keeps him alive, he dies. When we are separated from God, our life support source, we die. How can someone who is dead, separated from Life, be immortal?
Maybe you should ask yourself what does it mean to be dead (mortal).
Well, I will also tell you that life is life even if you don't understand it, FK. How's that?
Do you know what hell is? Do you know what love is? Can you describe, paint, define either?
And who is the supreme interpreter of the truth of the word of God? Your pastor? You? Is that biblical?
"Optimistic and joyful religion[s]" are what Warren and Osteen preach
I wouldn't know. But I know that Christ came to SAVE THE WORLD, FK. How about that little biblical truth?
If anyone wishes to subscribe to doom and gloom, fire and brimstones, that's their choice, but that's not the message Christ came to proclaim.
People have misused and abused religious affiliations for political and personal reasons, all of which equals wrong reasons. But that doesn't make apples oranges, RRR. :)
Then you must also believe that all the words around the word "sin" in the Bible, putting the word into context, are also wrong? I'm not so sure that your real beef is with the word "sin" itself, but with the concept behind it. If true, then tons and tons of scripture in English meets the chopping block. Yet, worldwide Orthodoxy has apparently abandoned its English speaking laity. While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable.
FK, what part of sola scriptura provides for the creation of new definitions for Greek words? What is it we keep hearing on the radio talk shows? You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
First of all, I don't understand your question about radio talk shows. Could you clarify?
Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?
It means to miss the mark. In Orthodoxy, the "mark" is Christ. Our actions are not Christ-like. THat is the understanding of sin in Orthodoxy and that's how the authors of the NT understood it. Not in juridical terms of breaking the law (which is Pharisaical) and a necessary penalty; just a failure. Those who sin are failures in Chirst.
But this does remind me of the same situation we get into with the Catholics over the word "venerate".
That comes from Greek as well. In Greek there are words ofte mistranslated as "worship" without qualification. But worship can be rendered to kings ad authorities and people we respect, but there is also worship reserved only for deity. Just as the filioque stems from the failure of the Latin language to correctly translate the Greek word to "proceed" (to well from), which always implies an origin rather than transit as well.
St. Augustine is known for his misinterpretation of Greek which he knew only marignally. Thus he translated a text which asserts that God created everything "at once" (simul) rather than "together." His readers who knew no Greek naurally built entire doctrines based on this mistranslation.
The same can eb said of the word baptiso (to immerse repeatedly affecting permanent change) rather than bapto which measn to simply immerse. The former is used in the NT in connection with baptism; the latter is not.
In the Lord's prayer the correct test is "as we have FORGIVEN those who tresspass against us." And "rescue us from the Crafty One" not from general evil.
And when the NT says "be therefore perfect..." it really says it in the future tense "become therefore perfect..." and so on, and so on, and so on...
These diffreences give different concepts and different cocnepts lead to different uderstandings and mindsets.
Concept formed on imperfect translations create imperfect doctrines...on assumption that we are reading what God, not humans wrote. Not one traslation of the NT is inspired. Not a single one.
FK, you know those two aren’t Orthodox nor do they teach Orthodoxy. That said, Orthodoxy, for all its ascetical and liturgical rigor, is remarkably joyful.
Yes, I know that very well. They are Protestants. :) In 10,462 I criticized them both AS Protestant leaders, and I pinged you to the post. I was drawing a comparison between Orthodoxy and what I consider to be wayward Protestant preachers. The point being that in my current view, Orthodoxy and these Protestant preachers all "dumb down" the concepts of sin and hell to the detriment of the believer.
The Jews and Greeks believed that "Shoel" or "Hades" is a place below the surface of the earth (the "underworld"). Do you believe that hell is a "place" below the surface of the earth as the OT seems to imply?
No, I don't believe that hell is necessarily in a location that is observable within the three (or 4) dimensions of our experiential universe. Hell is not hiding behind Mars or something like that. I assume it is in an unobservable dimension to us, and that the same principles that allow God to be in all places at once, apply. IOW, there are real places that take up space, that we are incapable of perceiving while we live on earth. I put both Heaven and hell into that category.
BTW, I was surprised that you brought up Hades. Am I right in that the Orthodox consider Hades and hell to be completely different concepts? If so, then Hades is unrelated to our conversation, and it doesn't matter what the Jews or Greeks thought.
They have "life" in existence, but not "life" in Christ. The Bible speaks of both concepts. I believe that the concept of "immortality", in the English, is much more associated with "life" in existence. You appear to have a different view. :)
Is life something we have on our own or is it from God.
God gives us our temporary physical life, as well as an immortal soul, which will go on forever either in Heaven or hell. The physical bodies we live in now do not go on forever. They are mortal.
When a patient is maintained on life support systems and is then disconnected from that which keeps him alive, he dies. When we are separated from God, our life support source, we die. How can someone who is dead, separated from Life, be immortal?
You are mixing the physical with the spiritual. The Bible confirms that they do not work the same way. In Genesis, God specifically limits our physical years to "120". Yet, we are told over and over again that if we believe we will have eternal life. Obviously, two different things are being referenced.
Well, I will also tell you that life is life even if you don't understand it, FK. How's that?
Consistent. :)
Do you know what hell is? Do you know what love is? Can you describe, paint, define either?
Scripture gives us the understanding of both that we are meant to have. I suppose that poets and philosophers (and others) have tried to improve upon it, but they have always failed. Everything we will ever need to know about love (or hell) is found right there in scriptures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.