Kevin's Watch

PS. Hope you like my edit with Foul's condensed Bible. . Just a shot of perspective.

Lord Foul wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:You guys are annoying. I hope rus doesn't reply and you guys keep posing arguments to empty space.

I notice you're reading along...

Not really. Just skimming enough to roll my eyes.

I'm just glad I don't have to answer all your questions. Or have to confront them to need to feel secure in my faith. What you and I get out of the Bible are utterly different things.

Here's my take, for the record: the Bible isn't a rule book or the provider of specific words to answer all our questions. It brings us closer to the Word who created us and knows our need before we ask. If you actually read the Bible not as Church authority (that's, uh, what Church is for), then you'll see it's a simple testament of God working through a people who were enslaved, then set free and became wealthy and enslaved others. Prophets warned they would pay for this, and they were enslaved again. Then prophets spoke of God's mercy and they were set free. The new testament is God's ultimate act and fulfillment of mercy and love in history: salvation through following Christ's teachings and creating a "kingdom of God", which is among us.

Read that way, you must ask as a believer: if he condemned Egypt and and later exiled his own people for being unjust, how will he judge me, my nation, my business, etc. Am I going against or with his purpose?

Anyway. My . Just thought I'd add it for no explicable reason.

Sure. And I can happily discuss that thinking. As well as various other takes that I, or others, have. As when I told Linna what I think of the Sermon on the Mount.

But that's not rus' take on it, and this thread is what rus thinks. He insists on something different. Something he can't back up. And when he doesn't stop at saying he is convinced my worldview is wrong, but goes on to say I don't even know my own, and I haven't even tried to understand his; and he's put oodles of thought into his, and he's even put more into mine than I have... I'm calling him out on his inconsistencies and his thoughtlessly swallowing the party line.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:You don't deal with it any better than I do. How many times have you said,
"I won't respond to this.
...
Except to say this..."

And how many times have you said you were done arguing with me, then gone another 10 rounds?

But I would stop with you, if you understood the argument. It's ok to agree to disagree. I'm telling you that I see no reason to believe what you believe, but I have reason to believe what I believe. Maybe someday I'll see reason to believe what you believe, but there's been no reason yet.

OTOH, you say I can't believe what I believe. It is impossible. I either did not truly think about it, or I have "bad mental thinking." Your argument is akin to saying there are no buildings over five stories tall.
"I'm in a 20-story building now."
"No, you're not. It's impossible for such a building to exist."
"You're wrong, because I'm in one right this second."
"No, you're not."
There are at least a few of us here who are in 20-story buildings. Telling us we are not is ignoring reality in order to keep your worldview intact.

Or, as I said long ago, I may not be able to convince you that 2+2=4, but I'm gonna try to convince you that we're talking about math! You think you're exposing our coterie to Truth that we can't see. But you're not. You're saying 2+2=a bushel of potatoes.

FWIW, I have come to understand your/the OC's beliefs a lot better than I did before you and I began talking, 83 years ago. But that doesn't change my opinion of those beliefs. I better understand how you feel about homosexuality and homosexual acts, and the difference between them in regards to what is a sin. However, I think that morality is wrong. Yes, wrong for God to feel that way, and to set up the whole system that way.

I better understand the Church sources of your faith. But I think, for example, Tradition is just a rationalization for hanging onto attitudes that are wrong and harmful. That some guy 1,500 years ago decided Book X, Verse Y means ___, and people decided to follow that decision for the last 1,500 years, does not mean that Book X, Verse Y means ___. It just means that guy's decision is when that Tradition started. Book X, Verse Y can be interpreted in other ways. You/the OC simply don't accept those other interpretations. Fine. You're welcome to your interpretation. But it's not the one-and-only objectively accurate interpretation. It's just the one you've chosen to follow.

And then there's repeated questions about this and that, which are answered in the most vague, meaningless ways.

So when there's a discussion about atheist children, and the answers they are given, and the answers they discover on their own, telling us we're wrong for not giving them your/the OC's answers is about as meaningful as... Not sure what the best analogy is that is not overly insulting. But whatever it is, that's it. Give us a break, willya?

I've already said a couple of dozen times now that I fully accept that you DO believe what you believe. I admit that you can believe yourself to be in a 20-story building - as Neo, er, Mr Anderson did, and that is the analogy I would use. Yes, you DO believe those things. It is NOT impossible to believe them and I do not say that it is. But you've chosen the blue pill, so enjoy your world view!
I do really wish you the best, even in that.

No, you haven't said that. What you've said is:
"Yes, I know you honestly think you're in a 20-story building. But you're not. You only think you are because you haven't really looked at the building you're in. You've only done a rough estimate of its size. Or maybe you looked at a reflection of it in one of those circus mirrors. Or something else. But 20-story buildings don't exist, so, despite the fact that you think you are in one, you're not. I know this, because I've looked at several buildings."

However, I am, in fact, in a 20-story building.

Hi Fist,
I appreciate the complement you've made to me by putting this stuff here. It might have been fun, if we hadn't already been around all these blocks and still cannot see eye-to-eye.

I'm very tired of debating, I no longer want to debate at all with people that cannot take my ideas and consider them - from what you've since said, I get that you've never fully understood how the western 'hell' really does differ from the concepts of sheol and gehenna, and how a final gehenna might be a logical consequence and not a punishment.

I know you believe what you believe. I can respect when you say that you are in a 20-story building, even when I say that you are not. But I certainly DO acknowledge that you say that you are in a 20-story building.

Looking over Ali's miscastings of various statements of mine on other threads, I truly despair in being able to say anything that can be heard. I'm at a place now where I feel that I have to let go. Maybe Murrin still has an honest question (although i am not at all sure). Maybe someone wants to try to understand. But I need a vacation from debates, maybe a long one, and at present it doesn't seem that we will be able to achieve any common understanding, even of the other's position (as we perceive it).

I do not call you insane; I hope that at least is clear; I do think there is an end run that you haven't seen that IS insane, but I do not say that not thinking something through is insanity - but again, I now doubt that you can even grasp that distinction. (Maybe suddenly you will, and the sun will come out from behind the clouds, though you deny the end run I describe. Then you would realize that I was never insulting you, even though I were wrong about my end run.) I have never intended insult.

I've always been fighting at more than ten-to-one odds here - quite literally. I wonder how many of you would last even three months in St Justin's Orthodox debate forum at Christian forums www.christianforums.com/f827/ ? And that's a place where, believe it or not, people are more civil than here (and I've always given KW high marks for civility).
I've stood, as the minority dissenting view, against the things most here hold to be conventional wisdom today. It's a draining position, and I feel drained.

I do say that in reading me, you have learned next-to-nothing about Orthodoxy - not because I haven't tried to make it relevant, but because as long as a person is not seeking, they are extremely unlikely to find. That's why Tracie was just as ineffective as I was in bringing you closer to faith (and I think her approach superior - but we do what we are good at, but as long as you're not seeking, it doesn't matter - my being different wouldn't have changed anything). So reading my posts , even for several years, does NOT give you 'certificate' that you've 'learned all you need to know'.

Anyway, maybe I'll pop in periodically, but I'm signing out of debates for now, and my thanks for your willingness to engage as much as you did over the years.

I can't do much on the psp. Heh. But I'm not talking about Gehenna being a punishment. I'm talking about the existence of an eternal afterlife that is named after a burning trashpit. This state of being is likely to be more than somewhat unpleasant. Eternally. The podcast you directed me to is my source of information. Stop saying you and the OC do not believe in it any more than I do.

rusmeister wrote:Maybe Murrin still has an honest question (although i am not at all sure).

It was an honest question, inasmuch as I have a passing interest in the history of religion (though I'm nowhere near a scholar), and was genuinely interested to hear how you as a believer reconcile the history of the church with the idea of it as "truth"- particularly when you have used arguments on the history of modern western faiths against them. Your answer is probably as good as you could have given, and about what I expected. It's not one I can disagree with, other than to say that it requires the assumption of being true to seem true... and that's a pointless argument to get into, one that's been done too many times already:

If one presumes God, then one can find God everywhere. If one presumes none, they can find none. It's the simple unprovable nature of faith, and so I have to just shrug and move on.

Fist and Faith wrote:I can't do much on the psp. Heh. But I'm not talking about Gehenna being a punishment. I'm talking about the existence of an eternal afterlife that is named after a burning trashpit. This state of being is likely to be more than somewhat unpleasant. Eternally. The podcast you directed me to is my source of information. Stop saying you and the OC do not believe in it any more than I do.

But this is the strange thing, Fist - I DO believe in it. I DON'T believe in your adoption of the western perception of it. I believe in sheol and gehenna, and get that the translation problem created the whole understanding thing that had Z telling his kid something that no Christian of the first millennium understood at all, that all you guys understand - incorrectly - today. The main thing I don't see you showing understanding of is how a person could do that to himself - and doubt that you understand what "that" is. If our God is both the Light of men and a consuming fire, then to those that love him, His presence will be heaven - to those that have taught themselves to hate Him - love themselves - it will be a consuming fire - gehenna - and the 'trash pit' part will be of their own making.

God doesn't put you in Hell. You end up there by choosing against God, which is apparently a side-effect of sin. Blah, blah, blah. I don't understand the sticking point of the burning trash pit. To me, Hell is the absence of God in the afterlife, no matter how it is 'physically represented'.

My opinion is that the ultimate destination has less relevance than the canonical list of actions one must take or avoid to get there.

In other words, if sin is sin, and we have decided to accept the Authority of that list, then the rest is just sports and weather.

dw

DW, I keep using that phrase so rus can't say there's no reason to think it's a particularly bad state of being, and that images of a lake of fire are way off the mark. Such an image is entirely appropriate.

rus, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is, indeed, a lake of fire. I don't care who gets there, or how. My point is that it exists.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:God doesn't put you in Hell. You end up there by choosing against God, which is apparently a side-effect of sin. Blah, blah, blah. I don't understand the sticking point of the burning trash pit. To me, Hell is the absence of God in the afterlife, no matter how it is 'physically represented'.

My opinion is that the ultimate destination has less relevance than the canonical list of actions one must take or avoid to get there.

In other words, if sin is sin, and we have decided to accept the Authority of that list, then the rest is just sports and weather.

dw

When you speak of a list, Dukkha, I think you might be with some justice speaking of the Catholic Church. I have spoken many times of the juridical nature of the Roman Catholic Church's theology, and the "list of actions" would follow to a great degree. It's just so untrue about the Eastern Church, though - it's really irrelevant to us. Our God is a Judge, not a Lawyer.

If sin is a disease rather than arbitrary law, then the attitude becomes more important than the actions - and I think that the more intelligent Catholics (who really DO examine the Tradition of their Church) would chime in - at least to a degree - on this. I know one - a gentleman of a poster - Stanley Anderson - but I haven't spoken to him since the Wardrobe fell apart.

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is, indeed, a lake of fire. I don't care who gets there, or how. My point is that it exists.

Yes - and what is it? What is its nature? Is it God punishing us for making an unlucky choice in life? Or is it where our focus on worshiping and loving the self ineluctably lead?

rusmeister wrote:

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:God doesn't put you in Hell. You end up there by choosing against God, which is apparently a side-effect of sin. Blah, blah, blah. I don't understand the sticking point of the burning trash pit. To me, Hell is the absence of God in the afterlife, no matter how it is 'physically represented'.

My opinion is that the ultimate destination has less relevance than the canonical list of actions one must take or avoid to get there.

In other words, if sin is sin, and we have decided to accept the Authority of that list, then the rest is just sports and weather.

dw

When you speak of a list, Dukkha, I think you might be with some justice speaking of the Catholic Church. I have spoken many times of the juridical nature of the Roman Catholic Church's theology, and the "list of actions" would follow to a great degree. It's just so untrue about the Eastern Church, though - it's really irrelevant to us. Our God is a Judge, not a Lawyer.

If sin is a disease rather than arbitrary law, then the attitude becomes more important than the actions - and I think that the more intelligent Catholics (who really DO examine the Tradition of their Church) would chime in - at least to a degree - on this. I know one - a gentleman of a poster - Stanley Anderson - but I haven't spoken to him since the Wardrobe fell apart.

Could there not be a list of actions to avoid, even if sin is a disease? Eating raw, rotten meat would be on the list of don'ts for physical health, why wouldn't there be a similar list for spiritual health?

Maybe the concept of Hell is not really a burning lake of fire where there will burning and gnashing of teeth?

Maybe its a translation problem.

Example: In the New Testament Bible Jesus says: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother...he cannot be my disciple.

However I beleive that he was not literally saying to hate your mother and father but that your Love for him must be so great that the love you have for your mother and father is as 'hate' when compared.

So perhaps Hell is being defined as a full separation from God rather than a place. And being totally separated from God is so bad that the only way the writers could describe it was to describe a place of fire and pain.

Just a thought.

from the 'what is hell' thread, jan 2009, Furls Fire wrote:I believe that hell is not a place at all, but a separation from God. I couldn't imagine anything more horrible than to be without the presence of the Father. Descriptions of hell, and Heaven for that matter, are, in my opinion, metaphor in the Bible. I do not believe that there is fiery pit that souls are cast into, anymore than I believe that there are streets of gold in Heaven. Heaven to me is being surrounded by the joy and light and grace of our Lord. Hell is blackness, emptiness, sorrow and loss.

Again, this is my belief. I have nothing to "prove" it with, just what my heart tells me.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is, indeed, a lake of fire. I don't care who gets there, or how. My point is that it exists.

Yes - and what is it? What is its nature? Is it God punishing us for making an unlucky choice in life? Or is it where our focus on worshiping and loving the self ineluctably lead?

You tell me. What is it? What is its nature? What is its nature? Again, I'm not asking how one ends up there. I'll stipulate that the only way one gets to this state of being is by doing everything wrong, by anybody's definition of right and wrong. You believe it is an eternal afterlife named after a burning trashpit. Can you be more specific about its nature?

rusmeister wrote:If sin is a disease rather than arbitrary law, then the attitude becomes more important than the actions -

But if you have accepted the Authority of your church, whichever one it may be, then you likely don't consider the law to be arbitrary, right? I don't understand why the distinction between disease and transgression is important. Wrong is wrong, no matter the degree. Call it breaking a rule, or knowingly corrupting onesself, so what? And attitude versus action... murder is murder - no matter whether it is undertaken with a sense of dark purpose, or with one of casual disregard.
And if both a juridical religion as well as a 'sin as disease-state' religion agree that something is'bad', then there is effectively no difference whatsoever, unless it is one of degrees.

dw

Fire Daughter wrote:

from the 'what is hell' thread, jan 2009, Furls Fire wrote:I believe that hell is not a place at all, but a separation from God. I couldn't imagine anything more horrible than to be without the presence of the Father. Descriptions of hell, and Heaven for that matter, are, in my opinion, metaphor in the Bible. I do not believe that there is fiery pit that souls are cast into, anymore than I believe that there are streets of gold in Heaven. Heaven to me is being surrounded by the joy and light and grace of our Lord. Hell is blackness, emptiness, sorrow and loss.

Again, this is my belief. I have nothing to "prove" it with, just what my heart tells me.

I would love to one day feel as if I am as close to The Father as your mom was when she was in her mortal body. But I have to say that it touched me for you to post that. I went back and found that thread and indeed I posted in that thread once. I wonder if what your mom had to say about Hell, spoke so much truth to me that I remembered it... either way. Thank you! You are your mothers daughter.

Home now, able to quote, cut, etc.

rusmeister wrote:I know you believe what you believe. I can respect when you say that you are in a 20-story building, even when I say that you are not. But I certainly DO acknowledge that you say that you are in a 20-story building.

I do not call you insane; I hope that at least is clear; I do think there is an end run that you haven't seen that IS insane, but I do not say that not thinking something through is insanity - but again, I now doubt that you can even grasp that distinction. (Maybe suddenly you will, and the sun will come out from behind the clouds, though you deny the end run I describe. Then you would realize that I was never insulting you, even though I were wrong about my end run.) I have never intended insult.

The problem with this dispute is that you are not understanding what I object to. This is a fundamental problem.

You claim:
-One who has thought meaningless through to the end will and must despair.
-Since I do not despair, I have not thought it through to the end.

The problem is that you do not acknowledge the possibility of any other end to thinking about meaninglessness. But your proof of this is invalid, and, frankly, you should be ashamed of clinging to it so adamantly. We're not talking about physical things! Not measurable. Not verifiable. We don't have objective, universally recognized and acknowledged laws. There's nothing like, "See this? You can't support this much weight with a pole of this material that is only this thick. It will collapse." And when they tried to build it, it collapsed. My position is not that I can fly if I flap my arms reallyreallyreally fast. That's something that can be proven very easily.

But here, we have none of that. The only type of verification in this type of situation is the conclusions of the people involved. So how do we decide who's conclusion is accurate? You have decided that, since you can only see despair at the end of the road whose starting point is meaninglessness, nobody can see anything other than despair. I, otoh, have direct experience with a different end.

It's really not a contest. We're talking about something that I am immersed in. It's my life. When one knows all will end, and meaning does not last forever, despair is not the only possible reaction. To insist that you are smarter than, or have put more thought into it than, or whatever than, all the people who have ever said they know otherwise... How the heck does one see the ground from such lofty heights??

rusmeister wrote:I've always been fighting at more than ten-to-one odds here - quite literally. I wonder how many of you would last even three months in St Justin's Orthodox debate forum at Christian forums www.christianforums.com/f827/ ?

Why on earth would I go there and tell them they're all wrong??? I can't imagine doing something so rude, arrogant, and unnecessary. If they come here and tell me I'm wrong, I'll give them the same I've given you.

Orlion wrote:

rusmeister wrote: When you speak of a list, Dukkha, I think you might be with some justice speaking of the Catholic Church. I have spoken many times of the juridical nature of the Roman Catholic Church's theology, and the "list of actions" would follow to a great degree. It's just so untrue about the Eastern Church, though - it's really irrelevant to us. Our God is a Judge, not a Lawyer.

If sin is a disease rather than arbitrary law, then the attitude becomes more important than the actions - and I think that the more intelligent Catholics (who really DO examine the Tradition of their Church) would chime in - at least to a degree - on this. I know one - a gentleman of a poster - Stanley Anderson - but I haven't spoken to him since the Wardrobe fell apart.

Could there not be a list of actions to avoid, even if sin is a disease? Eating raw, rotten meat would be on the list of don'ts for physical health, why wouldn't there be a similar list for spiritual health?

But the point wouldn't be the list, but what the list is trying to help you avoid, and achieve/become. Dukkha speaks as if that list were to be followed for it's own sake (arbitrary)

So yes, you'll have "Don't do x" - but the question never asked is "why not?" "What is this thing called sin and why should we avoid it?" And Furl's Daughter answered that above. Sin is separation from God, and that is the essence of he'll.