Losing the fear of an eternal hell

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say so. You had no de-programming to do, which can be a life-long project.

It sounds more like what is being called "religious trauma" these days, and my heart goes out to those who were caught and/or brought up in an essentially cultified and authoritarian church scenario.

That's got to be difficult to deal with.

 

[public hermit]

Pascal

That's too bad because Pascal rocks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's too bad because Pascal rocks.

Yes, I think he does, epistemically speaking.

.....still, one has to put up a guard against certain theological assumptions, even those of Pascal.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, I think he does, epistemically speaking.

.....still, one has to put up a guard against certain theological assumptions, even those of Pascal.

Like this?
"We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some, and enlighten others." #565

That's a classic assumption of Jansenism, which Pascal defended.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Infinite sin may be a misnomer, Mark. Maybe just a tad? It's probably better to just say, "We have a case where, it seems that humanity, in its sin, has deigned to set itself against an Eternal, Holy, Just, Merciful and Loving God."

And then we attempt to sift through that miasma for some sort of substantial meaning ...

I agree that human knowledge and specially human language can't do the subject justice. We have to go with what we do know. But...

In that God is infinite, sin against him is also therefore according to that measure, as far as I can tell. Sin is of itself nothing, but is dependent, like a parasite, on goodness for its antithetical definition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This reminds me of the lese-majeste law in Thailand, which is the crime of saying anything even slightly negative against the royal family, the great idea being that they are of infinite worth and everyone else is nothing in comparison. Jesus, however, was the servant King and so this rule doesn't apply.

He was also God, so how does this not apply? Is sin not against God?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I have noticed.

I notice that it is against the rules on this site to purposely misquote what someone says.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, if it was really that 'easy' to recognize something we like to conceive of as "God's justice," wouldn't everyone be falling all over each other with profuse hugs and kisses rather than clinching their red fists at each other in the name of "fairness" for the last, oh what, 5,000 years?

If you are agreeing with me here, ok, your post makes some sense, because no, it is not easy, and if it was, then....

But I'm somehow thinking you mean to disagree with me, which if so, your post doesn't add up, because I never said it was easy to recognize God's doings as 'just'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like this?
"We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some, and enlighten others." #565

That's a classic assumption of Jansenism, which Pascal defended.

From an exegetical standpoint, I'm more or less 'ok' with that assumption of #566 (i.e. by the pagination of one of the two version(s) of the Pensees that I own. Of course, I'd don't have to completely agree with Pascal in his 17th century exegesis, so I'd generally agree with him on it but with a bit of qualification.

No, when I said we had to be on guard against various theological assumptions, even those of Pascal, I instead had more in mind that other Jansenist proposition he affirmed, such as can be found in #131:

... ...This flow of [Original Sin] guilt does not seem merely impossible to us, indeed most unjust. What could be more contrary to the rules of our miserable justice than the eternal damnation of a child, incapable of will, for an act in which he seems to have so little part that it was actually committed 6,000 years before he existed? Certainly nothing jolts us more rudely than this doctrine, and yet, but for this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we remain incomprehensible to ourselves. The knot of our condition was twisted and turned in that abyss, so that it is harder to conceive of man without this mystery than for man to conceive of it himself... ...
​

Yeah, I'm not a fan of so-called "Original Sin." But for me, my disagreement with Pascal emerges from an epistemological issue rather than so much an axiological one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that human knowledge and specially human language can't do the subject justice. We have to go with what we do know. But...

In that God is infinite, sin against him is also therefore according to that measure, as far as I can tell. Sin is of itself nothing, but is dependent, like a parasite, on goodness for its antithetical definition.

Maybe, but no one HAS to agree with Augustine on that notion about the nature of 'evil.'

And so and thus, I don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are agreeing with me here, ok, your post makes some sense, because no, it is not easy, and if it was, then....

But I'm somehow thinking you mean to disagree with me, which if so, your post doesn't add up, because I never said it was easy to recognize God's doings as 'just'.

I might not be doing exactly either, Mark.

It might be that I'm skeptical that any of us truly understands some idea we label as "justice," and that this lack of understanding doesnt' just come about because, supposedly, we are subject to Total Depravity (ala Calvin), but rather because where ethical sensibilites are concerned, we have some epistemic problems in our efforts to bring all of our constitutive concepts together in one nice, clear, discernible, universally recognized package.

And thus, it's probably to our mutual benefit to give each other a bit of grace in our conversations about "justice" of any kind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe, but no one HAS to agree with Augustine on that notion about the nature of 'evil.'

And so and thus, I don't.

Ok

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alte, may I ask why this article from a 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia is "THE" final authority on this topic? Wouldn't it be consistent to say that it may...or may not be...relevant in the overall assessment? Also, perhaps I'm shortsighted, but am I supposed to care what "the book" of Enoch says all that much?
I'm just wondering. I like to pose trouble like that ...

If you have a credible source with a comparable pedigree, I am more than willing to consider it.
I have been active at this forum since George H.W. Bush was president and have cited the Jewish Encyclopedia [JE] for most of that time. I have yet to see any credible source(s) which contradict the JE articles I have quoted.
What you or I or anyone else thinks about Enoch is irrelevant. Enoch is quoted in the JE article 9 times. Evidently the Jews considered Enoch to be of some historical value. Enoch was only one of the books cited in the JE Gehenna article on which the then existing belief in hell was based.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I might not be doing exactly either, Mark.

It might be that I'm skeptical that any of us truly understands some idea we label as "justice," and that this lack of understanding doesnt' just come about because, supposedly, we are subject to Total Depravity (ala Calvin), but rather because where ethical sensibilites are concerned, we have some epistemic problems in our efforts to bring all of our constitutive concepts together in one nice, clear, discernible, universally recognized package.

And thus, it's probably to our mutual benefit to give each other a bit of grace in our conversations about "justice" of any kind.

Point taken and agreed with.

FWIW, I only call myself 'Reformed' and argue related subjects, because I came to believe what I do about those subjects, not as Reformed or Calvinist. I didn't even know until years later that what I had learned from Scripture and experience was so close to what Calvinism and Reformed theology teach. I.e. my point in any argument is not to defend them as such. (Though I will defend them against misrepresentations.)

 

[lismore]

It sounds more like what is being called "religious trauma" these days, and my heart goes out to those who were caught and/or brought up in an essentially cultified and authoritarian church scenario.

I have experienced this with brothers/ sisters who were under a salvation based on works form of church, whatever they did was never good enough. No assurance of salvation, no security. Even years afterwards they can feel insecure, driven, legalistic, critical, it takes time to de-toxify their minds. But the good news:

Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

God Bless

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you have a credible source with a comparable pedigree, I am more than willing to consider it.
I have been active at this forum since George H.W. Bush was president and have cited the Jewish Encyclopedia [JE] for most of that time. I have yet to see any credible source(s) which contradict the JE articles I have quoted.
What you or I or anyone else thinks about Enoch is irrelevant. Enoch is quoted in the JE article 9 times. Evidently the Jews considered Enoch to be of some historical value. Enoch was only one of the books cited in the JE Gehenna article on which the then existing belief in hell was based.

Der Alte, I think that where the supposed nature of Gehenna is concerned, its possible meaning in the New Testament is going to come down to a matter of overall Hermeneutical method rather than simply one that is decided by whether some source is credible or not.

Besides, even if your source is credible---and I think it is----the simple possession of one credible source may not be sufficient to tease out the complexities of what we have to face in discerning how to best exegete "Gehennna" --- or Hades or Tartartus for that matter. It's not just a lexical issue alone, and I don't think the book of Enoch (or the collection of writings it comprises) gets to be the definer in this discussion.

Then too, you and I know that different Jewish sects had different views even back in the 1st centuries (both B.C. and A.D.), making it hard to say, "The Ancient Jews precisely thought X about the meaning of Gehenna."

Now, please keep in mind that in my saying this, I'm not trying to debase any respect that the rest of us might be inclined to favor you with. For my part, I appreciate very much your firmness of faith and that you've been on this site for as long as you have. I also appreciate the fact that you served in the armed forces for our defense. But I just don't think these details, as much as they are respectable, are definitive in our common endeaver to understand whatever fear of Hell we could or should have....or maybe shouldn't have.

 

[Rescued One]

No, but He didn't speak in badly translated English either. Think talking to a Frenchman using only Google Translate. How well is that going to work out?

Btw, people who disagree with you are not calling God a "liar". That is merely a sign of your insecurity in your own beliefs.

I'm not the least bit insecure in my beliefs. If I were, i would have iignored this thread.

 

[WintersDust]

"Should"?

I think they ARE infinite sins, since they are committed against infinite God.

OK.
That makes them unforgivable.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alte, I think that where the supposed nature of Gehenna is concerned, its possible meaning in the New Testament is going to come down to a matter of overall Hermeneutical method rather than simply one that is decided by whether some source is credible or not.
Besides, even if your source is credible---and I think it is----the simple having of one credible source may not be sufficient to tease out the complexities of what we have to face in discerning how to best exegete "Gehennna" --- or Hades or Tartartus for that matter. It's not just a lexical issue alone, and I don't think the book of Enoch (or the collection of writings it comprises) gets to be the definer in this discussion.
Then too, you and I know that different Jewish sects had different views even back in the 1st centuries (both B.C. and A.D.), making it hard to say, "The Ancient Jews precisely thought X about the meaning of Gehenna."
Now, please keep in mind that in my saying this, I'm not trying to debase any respect that the rest of us might be inclined to favor you with. For my part, I appreciate very much your firmness of faith and that you've been on this site for as long as you have. I also appreciate the fact that you served in the armed forces for our defense. But I just don't think these details, as much as they are respectable, are definitive in our common endeaver to understand whatever fear of Hell we could or should have....or maybe shouldn't have.

I appreciate the cordial tenor of your post. It is the least confrontational post I think I have ever viewed. I did not post the Gehenna post for the purpose of suggesting that people should fear hell but to document that the Jewish belief in hell existed before and during the time of Jesus.
I am still waiting for a post citing credible, verifiable historical evidence which disproves of my conclusions. In my post Enoch was not the only source cited. I also quoted 8 OT verses and Judith, which is listed in the 225 BC LXX.
Here is the disclaimer posted at the beginning of my post.

….."There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not disprove anything in this post."​

 

[public hermit]

OK.
That makes them unforgivable.

I agree. If there were sins that were never forgiven, evil wins. If God punishes unrepentant creatures forever, evil wins. But evil only wins because God perpetuates it. On this account, I think conditional mortality has a better position that eternal damnation. At least with conditional mortality, God is not perpetuating the evil that God hates. It's end is final, not eternal. I just don't think God destroys the good that God creates.

"God is not a destroyer of anything that is good. He is the fulfiller. He is the perfecter of nature and never one to overthrow it. His grace will not negate nature but perfect it until it is at its best...Grace does not overcome nature but make it perfect." Meister Eckhart