Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd say so. You had no de-programming to do, which can be a life-long project.
Pascal
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.
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 ...
He was also God, so how does this not apply? Is sin not against God?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.
I notice that it is against the rules on this site to purposely misquote what someone says.Yes, I have noticed.
If you are agreeing with me here, ok, your post makes some sense, because no, it is not easy, and if it was, then....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?
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.
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.
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'.
OkMaybe, but no one HAS to agree with Augustine on that notion about the nature of 'evil.'
And so and thus, I don't.
If you have a credible source with a comparable pedigree, I am more than willing to consider it.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 ...
Point taken and agreed with.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.
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.
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.
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.
OK."Should"?
I think they ARE infinite sins, since they are committed against infinite God.
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.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.
OK.
That makes them unforgivable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?