Do you love your enemies?

[ArcaneLurker]

If a person is literally too stupid and incapable of understanding, then no God wouldn't punish them for not understanding -- he made them that way. But keep in mind that what people don't understand on an intellectual level, they often still understand on internal, spiritual level. In fact, even with intelligent people the intellect often gets in the way of this spiritual understanding -- which is the reason you can't get yourself to accept Christ even though you know you should.

So then I was made to be punished for my intellectual level, a disposition towards scepticism and an adherence to being grounded in what is tangible rather than putting too much faith in metaphysical concepts & theology.

The law is written on our hearts. I don't think for a second that Aztecs were absolved of their demon worshipping and cutting the hearts out of sacrifices "because they didn't know better". They're only absolved of not proclaiming themselves for Christ, since they'd never heard the name. Somewhere, to some extent, they knew what they were doing was wrong -- and that's the part of them that God will judge.

That is in contradiction to WhiteShark's reply as I understood it.

This is part of the "blank slatism" that I was referring to. Because of your underlying beliefs, you have to believe that everyone has the same capacity for morality, the same inherent social disgusts, in order to make an 'informed' choice. But I've already seen that isn't true.

[WhiteShark]

It sounds like you don't have anything to say or show which would remedy that.

I don't intend to debate free will here, but if you're trying to understand Christian thought, you should keep in mind that free will is a core tenet of Christianity.

Intelligence is a spectrum and there seems to be an inherent bias towards punishing intellect whilst absolving the stupid. Very much like how in American Courts they lighten the sentences of criminals based on their retardation, whilst still upholding them, not only as equals, but as role models/ moral & cultural superiors.

Does God condescend to our ignorance and weakness? Yes. Does that mean being stupid is a get-out-of-jail-free card? No. If someone did something wrong but could not have known it was wrong, not even by his own conscience, then it wouldn't be counted against him, but that's the exception, not the rule.

And you've only gone to prove the point I raised before-- the Europeans that became Christians and spread Christianity over the world are the suckers in this scenario, they're actually the least likely to enter into heaven, and the Tribals that literally never knew of him get absolved of everything they did by default.

No, I said God doesn't automatically damn them for never having known Christianity. He will still damn evildoers, Christian or not:

2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

[WhiteShark]

So then I was made to be punished for my intellectual level, a disposition towards scepticism and an adherence to being grounded in what is tangible rather than putting too much faith in metaphysical concepts & theology.

No, you were made to follow Christ. Those are dispositions, not insurmountable obstacles. A powerful intellect is a good and beautiful thing when put in the service of good. The choice lies with you.

[Nammu Archag]

You don't hate them, its their sin (actions, behavior, etc..) that is the problem right?. To claim it is the person in some form of genetic fashion would be to say people can not change and do not deserve redemption regardless.

If we ascribed to such, then nobody would be redeemable due to the indiscretions of their past or as some used to ascribe to with lineage. If we accept that people can change, however unlikely, this hate then for the person becomes an issue as what do you do when they change? Continue to hate them?

I think this is what the Christian approach that we are discussing is getting at, that ultimately all are sinners, all have indiscretions at some point in their lives through varying reasons and to judge with such in absolute terms the person as such an unchangeable would deny our own self this very nature.

This has nothing to do with punishment and consequences here on earth, it is more of spiritual means. Imagine having extreme hate under this condition and then finding this person accepted by God at some point as your brother? Do you continue to hate? For what purpose as your entire position of hate was driven by a judgement of certain conditions that are no longer present.

I have no problem putting down a person who ascribes to an evil action or behavior with their crime, but also know that they may repent and be my brother at some point in the future. So, I think you can easily hold to Christian values AND obtain the level of result you would seek in justice to evil that exists.

At least that is what I prescribe to.

I do hate them. I don't think most people actually change on a base level. Most of our traits and characteristics are predetermined by our genes and other factors outside of our control. We DO have control over the decisions we make, and this is important, but ultimately that is only one aspect that determines whether someone is reprehensible or not. Nor is hate a singular entity. It is a spectrum of natural emotions just like happiness and love and sadness are.

But to address your initial point: I do think many people are just innately awful, especially ones from select groups. If even they can be redeemed in the eyes of this god, then I want nothing to do with that god.

Not speaking of generalities, rather the specifics. What if that person you hate, but then not only changes, but becomes a better person than you (being the pinnacle to which your own standards judge as such). What then?

Who exactly do you think I hate in the first place? What you just said isn't possible even within your what-if scenario.

[OnTilt]

So then I was made to be punished for my intellectual level, a disposition towards scepticism and an adherence to being grounded in what is tangible rather than putting too much faith in metaphysical concepts & theology.

Not "punished for" but perhaps that is your burden to bare, yes. Just as someone raised in a Muslim society is going to have the burden of going against their entire culture, we all have our own challenges to overcome.

This is part of the "blank slatism" that I was referring to. Because of your underlying beliefs, you have to believe that everyone has the same capacity for morality, the same inherent social disgusts, in order to make an 'informed' choice. But I've already seen that isn't true.

I didn't read his reply, but if I disagree then I disagree. The bottom line though is that those who haven't heard the gospel will be judged by the law and that the law is written on our hearts.

To me it doesn't seem that everyone has the same capacity for moral acts, and I don't think there is anything taught by the Church that insists that's so. That doesn't mean they're irredeemable, but I think its safe to say that its more difficult for some than others.

As to whether or not this is "fair", I don't know. God is about justice, not fairness. Only he can see the hearts of men to know what they're truly made of, and I can take as an article of faith that however he handles it is the right way.

[ArcaneLurker]

I don't intend to debate free will here, but if you're trying to understand Christian thought, you should keep in mind that free will is a core tenet of Christianity.

That's fair. I just don't understand the reluctance to paint a picture of the promise which is claimed to be the main motivation.

Does God condescend to our ignorance and weakness? Yes. Does that mean being stupid is a get-out-of-jail-free card? No. If someone did something wrong but could not have known it was wrong, not even by his own conscience, then it wouldn't be counted against him, but that's the exception, not the rule.

So there is an inherent desire for Christians to assume that the invitation is open to all because everyone has equal access to the prerequisites of a conscience that would tell them that raping or killing is a bad thing.

I'd suggest that such a conscience is not universal, it is the result of generations upon generations of selection geared towards living in complex civilised agricultural society. As well as a result of socialisation/ culture. There is a lot of doubt and ambiguity to all of this though, no matter what you decide.

No, I said God doesn't automatically damn them for never having known Christianity. He will still damn evildoers, Christian or not:

2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

The scripture there seems to indicate that it's dependant on their conscience. So you must assume that everyone has equal access to an equal conscience?

There are different degrees of "evil doing" but if we use the clear ultimatum along the lines of the "will not inherit the kingdom" verses, and we look at how these people live, then it's pretty much only the ones that die as babies that are getting in. And what are they getting into?

Because if you're saying it's something their eternal disembodied soul is getting into, and it's therefore not something that can't be described or related to, then I would argue that the soul must be formless and meaningless, unbound by the previous restraints or corruptions, and there would therefore be no reason in the process of "Hell", because everything the soul did wrong was to do with it's physical body, nature & limitations. Although, to me, it's pretty obvious there is no evidence of a disembodied soul, even if I saw some mystic apparition, I have other reasons to reject the idea and would assess this apparition sceptically.

If it's a physical paradise on Earth, like JW would suggest, then I'd say there are not only logistical issues with this suggestion, there are also problems regarding the nature of what is being brought in (because they are technically innocent, but came from a not-so innocent source). Anything physical has to abide by physical laws, and maintaining a perfect order has high requirements, such as gatekeeping all whom are unsuitable for maintaining that perfect societal order.

[Xenich]

I do hate them. I don't think most people actually change on a base level. Most of our traits and characteristics are predetermined by our genes and other factors outside of our control. We DO have control over the decisions we make, and this is important, but ultimately that is only one aspect that determines whether someone is reprehensible or not. Nor is hate a singular entity. It is a spectrum of natural emotions just like happiness and love and sadness are.

But to address your initial point: I do think many people are just innately awful, especially ones from select groups. If even they can be redeemed in the eyes of this god, then I want nothing to do with that god.

Not speaking of generalities, rather the specifics. What if that person you hate, but then not only changes, but becomes a better person than you (being the pinnacle to which your own standards judge as such). What then?

Who exactly do you think I hate in the first place? What you just said isn't possible even within your what-if scenario.

That wasn't my point. It isn't about a specific "who", its about the general aspect of hating someone according to your reasoned principals. So, lets say it is someone you would term as you "Hate" for whatever reason you have established as a legitimate reason. According to your principals, it is a worthy position to take. Now, lets say that person completely changes, and not simply changes, but excels to levels that are the pinnacle of your standards of what "good" can be. I mean, they hit every single mark that makes you really admire them. What then? Do you continue to hate them?

I don't know your principals, and I assume you don't have some doctrine you have published do you? Or do you follow some pagan system? I mean, if you do, that would answer the question as it would then set how you would act accordingly. If not, if your principals are simply what you have created, then that is why I am asking. How do you, in your principals deal with the example above? Do you forgive? Is that person you hated, are they redeemable?

[OnTilt]

So you must assume that everyone has equal access to an equal conscience?

Why must that be an assumption?

[ArcaneLurker]

Not "punished for" but perhaps that is your burden to bare, yes. Just as someone raised in a Muslim society is going to have the burden of going against their entire culture, we all have our own challenges to overcome.

You're right that "punished" is the wrong word to use.

I didn't read his reply, but if I disagree then I disagree.

He corrected me on that misunderstanding.

The bottom line though is that those who haven't heard the gospel will be judged by the law and that the law is written on our hearts.

"law is written on our hearts"
Isn't that a verse about Israelite tribes who had the Law written on their hearts because they fell and had to be scattered?
If it had to be written in their hearts, doesn't that indicate it's not something there by default?

To me it doesn't seem that everyone has the same capacity for moral acts, and I don't think there is anything taught by the Church that insists that's so. That doesn't mean they're irredeemable, but I think its safe to say that its more difficult for some than others.

So then it naturally filters certain people out in accordance with their physical limitations-- which are not only disadvantages but are their core motivations towards decision making, their natural inclinations & predispositions, hormones, ways of thinking & perceiving the world.

As to whether or not this is "fair", I don't know. God is about justice, not fairness. Only he can see the hearts of men to know what they're truly made of, and I can take as an article of faith that however he handles it is the right way.

This didn't start because I was complaining about fairness or justice like others may-- although it may seem like that's what I'm saying.
I suppose it's difficult for me to put into words how I feel but if there is an all powerful being with such a bias against intellect... it's not very inspiring, or love-inducing for me, it only leaves fear of the alternative as a motivator. But I can't fear something like that anymore than I could fear other unsubstantiated claims and metaphysical theories which aren't grounded in the objective.

I struggle with leaps of faith because I've been burnt too many times by doing that.

[ArcaneLurker]

Why must that be an assumption?

WhiteShark stated:

The chance for redemption is, in fact, one of the very few examples of something given to everyone. This life is the chance to repent, and each man's circumstances are arranged to make it possible.

[WhiteShark]

@ArcaneLurker I just don't have the energy to have a big philosophical debate about free will and the existence of the metaphysical. I've had lots of debates of this sort in the past and my experience throughout is that it changes no one's mind. I'm happy to clarify the Christian position but I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion; hence, I will not be making any comments about free will other than to say that it is a necessary part of Christian thought.

I don't believe everyone has access to an equally equipped conscience. It's clear that some people are more intrinsically scrupulous than others. Nevertheless, one is required to live at least according to the conscience and knowledge of the good he does have. That does not mean it were better to be ignorant, for the Church is the ark of salvation, communicating the grace of God and helping the individual to live as he should. And yes, in all likelihood the vast majority of those in evil societies will not make it, but that's not surprising, for Christ teaches:

7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The soul can exist separately from the body, but a human is both soul and body, so a man who has lost is body is incomplete. Christ showed that there will be a bodily resurrection, and further prophesied that all creation would be remade. It's not hard to imagine that a remade creation would be fashioned to accommodate; it is God, after all, who created physical laws in the first place. The saints, having been sealed in Christ, will not have to worry about anything, let alone social disorder; they will be in harmonious accord, forever.

[Nammu Archag]

Not speaking of generalities, rather the specifics. What if that person you hate, but then not only changes, but becomes a better person than you (being the pinnacle to which your own standards judge as such). What then?

Who exactly do you think I hate in the first place? What you just said isn't possible even within your what-if scenario.

That wasn't my point. It isn't about a specific "who", its about the general aspect of hating someone according to your reasoned principals. So, lets say it is someone you would term as you "Hate" for whatever reason you have established as a legitimate reason. According to your principals, it is a worthy position to take. Now, lets say that person completely changes, and not simply changes, but excels to levels that are the pinnacle of your standards of what "good" can be. I mean, they hit every single mark that makes you really admire them. What then? Do you continue to hate them?

I don't know your principals, and I assume you don't have some doctrine you have published do you? Or do you follow some pagan system? I mean, if you do, that would answer the question as it would then set how you would act accordingly. If not, if your principals are simply what you have created, then that is why I am asking. How do you, in your principals deal with the example above? Do you forgive? Is that person you hated, are they redeemable?

A large chunk of the people I hate are completely irredeemable. Someone like Larry Fink is irredeemable to me. Some anti-white nig or paki gang-rapist is irredeemable to me. Anyone who's complicit in the extermination of me and my future, my people, etc, is irredeemable. Some random black or a troon libshit probably isn't going to kill me directly, but because they facilitate a population and culture that is actively trying to, I naturally hate them just as they hate me for existing. My hate is partially pragmatic and tribal in nature. Us vs them or however you want to interpret it. In more complex terms, it is derived from reason, from my own culture and the culture of my progenitors, and my own experiences.

So to answer your question. If some (insert terrible group) guy did something to wrong me or my community etc, like rape someone, can I forgive him? Never. He and those complicit ought to suffer for antagonizing us. It is that simple. A price must be paid.

[Breathe]

I love them insofar as to understand their plight or perspective. No more.

[OnTilt]

"law is written on our hearts"
Isn't that a verse about Israelite tribes who had the Law written on their hearts because they fell and had to be scattered?
If it had to be written in their hearts, doesn't that indicate it's not something there by default?

The law was written on the hearts of men from the very beginning. Its not your conscience per se, but really something deeper than that, since our "conscience" gets obfuscated by all sorts of worldly things: Emotions, ideology, social conventions, etc.

So then it naturally filters certain people out in accordance with their physical limitations-- which are not only disadvantages but are their core motivations towards decision making, their natural inclinations & predispositions, hormones, ways of thinking & perceiving the world.

I guess you could say so to an extent, but I think you're over emphasizing the physical. The flesh is meant to be subservient to the intellect, which in turn is supposed to be subservient to the spirit. You seem to be intent upon a very deterministic world view -- this would be why people are calling you a materialist. What makes mankind special is that we can rise above the sum of our parts, and we do this through Christ.

This didn't start because I was complaining about fairness or justice like others may-- although it may seem like that's what I'm saying.
I suppose it's difficult for me to put into words how I feel but if there is an all powerful being with such a bias against intellect... it's not very inspiring, or love-inducing for me, it only leaves fear of the alternative as a motivator. But I can't fear something like that anymore than I could fear other unsubstantiated claims and metaphysical theories which aren't grounded in the objective.

I actually included that because from experience I know that's a common knee-jerk reaction and was heading off the most likely response. I should stop doing that though. I don't think God has an inherent bias against intelligent people. It may increase your burden (intelligent people are often less happy), but its a burden you were meant to carry, and its not one that will be too much for you unless you decide it is.

WhiteShark stated:
The chance for redemption is, in fact, one of the very few examples of something given to everyone. This life is the chance to repent, and each man's circumstances are arranged to make it possible.

Yes, everyone has a chance. Not everyone is equally up to the task. So while everyone has a conscience, there's no reason to assume that all consciences are equal. Also, its worth mentioning here that a conscience is a bit like a muscle - You can have a conscience that is deformed or not kept in condition. The pursuit of spiritual growth is what strengthens it and keeps it healthy.

[Xenich]

Who exactly do you think I hate in the first place? What you just said isn't possible even within your what-if scenario.

That wasn't my point. It isn't about a specific "who", its about the general aspect of hating someone according to your reasoned principals. So, lets say it is someone you would term as you "Hate" for whatever reason you have established as a legitimate reason. According to your principals, it is a worthy position to take. Now, lets say that person completely changes, and not simply changes, but excels to levels that are the pinnacle of your standards of what "good" can be. I mean, they hit every single mark that makes you really admire them. What then? Do you continue to hate them?

I don't know your principals, and I assume you don't have some doctrine you have published do you? Or do you follow some pagan system? I mean, if you do, that would answer the question as it would then set how you would act accordingly. If not, if your principals are simply what you have created, then that is why I am asking. How do you, in your principals deal with the example above? Do you forgive? Is that person you hated, are they redeemable?

A large chunk of the people I hate are completely irredeemable. Someone like Larry Fink is irredeemable to me. Some anti-white nig or paki gang-rapist is irredeemable to me. Anyone who's complicit in the extermination of me and my future, my people, etc, is irredeemable. Some random black or a troon libshit probably isn't going to kill me directly, but because they facilitate a population and culture that is actively trying to, I naturally hate them just as they hate me for existing. My hate is partially pragmatic and tribal in nature. Us vs them or however you want to interpret it. In more complex terms, it is derived from reason, from my own culture and the culture of my progenitors, and my own experiences.

So to answer your question. If some (insert terrible group) guy did something to wrong me or my community etc, like rape someone, can I forgive him? Never. He and those complicit ought to suffer for antagonizing us. It is that simple. A price must be paid.

Fair enough. I can't say I am not without similar feelings (as it concerns punishment). I would have no issue having a rapist executed. Past that, I think someone could redeem themselves, which is why I don't extend my judgement to their soul. As for those who advocate hate for for someone, there are examples of people who have "awakened" to their programming and completely changed their lives in support of the people they originally claimed to hate. Though I agree, some things require punishment and some are so heinous that God will decide. Forgiveness does not equate to absolution of consequence.

[herkzter]

i do, mostly in the sense that i see a lot of my past self in internet strangers i run into here or wherever else, doing things such as clinging to childish habits or hanging onto potentially destructive beliefs - basically, i've experienced what they're doing first hand, so i have experience in what it's like

i don't hate people, the individual, for doing things i've done, only specific things that i've done in the past and they're doing

[OnTilt]

only specific things that i've done in the past and they're doing

I struggle with this when it comes to lolbertarians. I was 15 too once, but man its hard to remember that sometimes.

[Acrux]

@ArcaneLurker I just don't have the energy to have a big philosophical debate about free will and the existence of the metaphysical. I've had lots of debates of this sort in the past and my experience throughout is that it changes no one's mind. I'm happy to clarify the Christian position but I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion; hence, I will not be making any comments about free will other than to say that it is a necessary part of Christian thought.

I've stopped having these kinds of debates for the most part, too, as I've noticed the same thing. I've come to the conclusion that a large part of it is that people who haven't been properly catechized are wanting to understand the more complex parts of Christianity. But, if they don't have the foundation already, there are lots of misunderstandings about Christian thought they are bringing into the discussion with them which just creates more confusion.

[WhiteShark]

I've stopped having these kinds of debates for the most part, too, as I've noticed the same thing. I've come to the conclusion that a large part of it is that people who haven't been properly catechized are wanting to understand the more complex parts of Christianity. But, if they don't have the foundation already, there are lots of misunderstandings about Christian thought they are bringing into the discussion with them which just creates more confusion.

That's surely a big part of it, but the other is: how open is anybody in the debate to different ideas, really? As much as people may like to think otherwise, they usually aren't. I was recently reading How to Win Friends and Influence People and I found myself nodding along vigorously when I came to the section about arguments:

Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants being more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.

You can’t win an argument. You can’t, because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And——

“A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.”

[Emphyrio]

the nice thing about calvinism is you don't have to debate free will or the fairness of eskimos and babies going to hell

[rusty_shackleford]

Eskimos go to hell because they club baby seals.

[Crusaderknight20]

It can't be avoided when that's the majority of them-- same with CoE or any big traditional Christian sect. The American sects are another issue. Not everyone is equally capable of doing deep catechizing, so if it is a requirement of belief, then there is a contradiction with regards to the claim that it's an open invitation to all humans.

Absolutely, the presence of "cultural Catholics" is part of a wider phenomenon across traditions. And, it is a major problem that we face in the Church today.

However, God doesn’t have grandchildren, only children, emphasizing a personal journey with Him for everyone. The Church's role is to facilitate understanding and growth, not to serve as a barrier. It's about engaging with the faith at your own pace, supported by a 2000-year tradition that respects both depth and accessibility.

Is there something I'm missing as to why it's not an apt analogy? What you're claiming seems like a very specific interpretation that would have been good to make obvious in the text so that no other interpretation could be made.

The way it's used in scripture isn't a threat? The only times it's mentioned are clear ultimatum. So it's important as to whether people believe that threat is destruction or it is eternal torture.

Because the former is something every atheist has to come to terms with in their acceptance of mortality, and the latter is an incomprehensible yet frightful concept, especially for a child.

I'm asking people to sell that "promise", as if the 'totally-not-a-threat' wasn't a thing to factor into motivations.

Understanding scripture involves more than just a literal or surface reading; it's diving deep into context and the Church's teachings, including the Magisterium, which guides us away from individual interpretations that stray from the core message. The early Church Fathers, along with the consistent teachings of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics, showcase a unified understanding of scripture and dogma, emphasizing tradition and authoritative interpretation over "sola scriptura." Contrast this with the Protestant experience, where numerous interpretations have led to significant divisions. At various councils, instead of reaching consensus, disagreements often resulted in further fragmentation, highlighting the challenges of interpreting scripture without a unifying teaching authority.

Since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus was the only person able to accomplish a perfect following of the God's Law, and Christians are supposed to mimic Jesus, I think it's fair to say it's about striving to be perfect or close-enough. It also says that nearer the end of days, things will become harder, so naturally, only the perfected make it through those trials... But yes, I suppose it's not about being perfect or else, looking back, since that would exclude many figures in the Bible who obviously weren't perfect. But I am thinking about now and ahead here-- what is going to happen to those that disrupt the order of heaven/ paradise with the sins that were forgiven? That's the other issue. I don't see how the loop of sin-forgiveness-sin makes any sense. Repenting means to understand why it's bad and cease doing it. If you keep doing it, how genuine is your repentance?

I agree that God would not be the sort of character that would want robots, but that doesn't really bare much relation to my criticism of the belief in Hell. If anything, the belief does not align with this view of God's Libertarian character that you're painting.

Also are there not parts of the Bible where it describes that God "turns his face away" from individuals? Is that not giving up on people?

The journey of faith is truly about striving to emulate Jesus, recognizing that although we aim for perfection, God's mercy and forgiveness are always within reach. This ongoing cycle of sinning and receiving forgiveness isn't a loophole but part of a deeper process of conversion—a sincere shift towards God, fueled by trust. Faith, at its core, means to trust in God's path for us, even when we stumble.

Regarding hell, if those there were given the chance to leave for heaven, many might still choose to stay. This preference for separation over unity with God reflects the choices we make on earth and doesn't go against God's nature. Instead, it highlights God's profound respect for our freedom—a freedom He gave us out of love.

When Scripture speaks of God turning His face away, it's not about Him giving up on us. Rather, it's about the natural consequences of our actions, serving as a stern invitation to return to Him, not a sign of eternal abandonment. Faith, then, is about trusting in this process, knowing that God's desire is always for reconciliation and love, not punishment.

Are you under the impression that you possess an eternal soul that even God can not snuff out into non-existence? I assume not. So then you'd understand that it is vengeance of the most extreme kind, as unfathomable as eternity is, because it is written as fully intentional. Not as a passing consequence that was out of God's hands.

The Catholic teaching, based on both the Catechism and insights from early Church Fathers, views the soul as immortal. This isn't about God lacking the power to end existence, but rather about His wish for us to enjoy eternal life with Him. Our souls, created in God's image, are meant for this eternal destiny.

The Catechism (CCC 1020-1065) discusses the afterlife, emphasizing that hell isn't about divine vengeance but the result of a person's choice to live without God. It's about our freedom and the choices we make.

Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, two pivotal figures in early Christian thought, delve into these topics. Augustine speaks on free will and God's justice, suggesting that our eternal fate is a testament to God's fair judgment, balancing His justice and mercy. Aquinas further explores the soul's immortality, underscoring that the consequences we face after death reflect our earthly lives and choices.

Their teachings reinforce that hell is not a punishment imposed by a vengeful deity but a state one chooses through rejection of God's love. This perspective highlights God's respect for our free will and His desire for us to choose a life with Him.

I know that isn't intended, but it is the logical implication.

Absolutely, sharing the 'word' is fundamentally about inviting others into a deeper, loving relationship with God, not about setting up a framework for harsher judgment. The diversity of interpretations within Protestantism, leading to significant division, contrasts sharply with the Catholic Church’s approach.

This reliance on the Magisterium, alongside a rich tradition spanning 2000 years, provides a more cohesive and unified interpretation of scripture.

It’s also critical to clarify the Church's stance on reason. Historical episodes, like the Galileo affair, often paint a misleading picture. Galileo's personal faith is underscored by his daughters becoming nuns, highlighting a familial commitment to the Church. The dispute with Galileo was more about interpersonal conflicts and missteps by the Church rather than a rejection of scientific inquiry.

Moreover, the Church's engagement with science is further exemplified by its support for Copernicus and Kepler. Copernicus, a cleric himself, was the first to propose the heliocentric system, and his work was encouraged by the Church. Kepler, too, received support from Jesuit astronomers, who were among the first to validate his laws of planetary motion.

This financial and intellectual support for Kepler, despite his Protestant faith, and the encouragement of Copernicus’s revolutionary ideas, affirm the Church’s longstanding commitment to the advancement of knowledge and the harmonious relationship between faith and reason.

But the dynamic between Teachers and Learners also applies to the dynamic between Christians and non-Christians.

Spot on. The relationship between Christians and non-Christians is indeed akin to that between teachers and learners.
It’s about sharing knowledge and experience with humility and understanding, not for the sake of superiority or coercion. This exchange is grounded in love and the desire for all to come to know the joy of God's love.

[loregamer]

Thread's dead but thanks for the insight bros. I'll have more questions throughout my journey

[maidenhaver]

Your journey? Boy, this ain't no star wars.

[loregamer]

Your journey? Boy, this ain't no star wars.

I’m the world's main character

[AmericanMonarchist]

I have no enemies of my own to hate. My only enemies are the enemies of God, and the Bible is clear on how we are to feel about God's enemies.
"To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech." (Proverbs 8:13)
"Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalms 97:10.)

It is Christian to hate the enemies of God. It is also Christian to love former enemies of God and treat them as if they were family all along, just as Jesus does.
Then Jesus told them this parable: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15:3-7)

[Boontaker]

Redemption is a door everyone has the key to, if they don't open it then fuck um

[maidenhaver]

@AmericanMonarchist wants to be muslim.

[Gastrick]

Strange no mention of the original term used for "enemies" in the New Testament.

The Greek language makes a distinction between public (collective) enemies (ἐχθρός/inimicos) and private (personal) enemies (πολέμιος/hostes). Jesus says only to forgive your private enemies, while making no mention of public enemies

Explains it more here: https://guerrillaontologies.com/2014/09 ... -analysis/

[AmericanMonarchist]

@AmericanMonarchist wants to be muslim.

How so?