![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - January 08 2004 : 02:44:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
I find the belittling of others' religious or philosophical beliefs to be quite offensive.
I am rather glad you made posted this response Scott! Although I took this post in the spirit in which it was intended, it did make me question again how the views of an atheist are rarely given the same respect as most religious views. For example, an atheist parent raising a child with the same ideology has a tough time when religion permeates their place of education, courthouses and even their expressions of patriotism eg pledge of allegiance, national anthem. I believe in the separation of church and state, and we live in countries where this is a claim, but not a reality.
I actually wanted to say a lot more on this topic, but I have just seen the time, and have to head to work!! (Hmm, that may turn out to be a good thing!!) Maybe, this will at least start a ball rolling....
HM |
report to moderator  |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 10 2004 : 4:38:46 PM
|
This was a joke forwarded to me from my friend Rich Baker. It is so good, that I had to include it on this thread:
Subject:Here comes the Marines
An Atheist professor at an east coast Ivy League university was teaching a class and told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He said, “God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this
platform. God, I’ll give you 15 minutes to do this.”
Ten minutes went by, all the time he taunted God, “Here I am, God. I’m still waiting.” As the last minutes approached, he smugly smiled.
A young Marine in the class, just released from active duty and newly registered to the University, walked up to the professor, hit him full force on the chin, sending him flying from his platform and crashing to floor.
The professor struggled up, badly shaken and yelled, “What’s the matter with you?! Why did you do that?!”
The Marine replied, “God was busy; He sent the Marines.”
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 23 2004 : 5:25:08 PM
|
LOL
hehe, i like it 
the atheist thing was great too...
i personally am an atheist, although a passive one.
i think people should believe whatever they're comfortable believing, and the fact that i dont believe in god doesnt mean that you shouldnt.
Jesus, for example, allegedly came to earth so many years ago that whether he did or didnt is unclear... no one knows who really wrote the bible, etc...
so if you believe in god, or in more than one of them for that matter, i say go ahead.
-ithi |
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 23 2004 : 8:27:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ithiliana
Jesus, for example, allegedly came to earth so many years ago that whether he did or didnt is unclear...
On the contrary, Ithiliana. It is quite clear. He came.
quote:
...no one knows who really wrote the bible, etc...
There are many Biblical scholars who would disagree with you heartily. I think perhaps you might want to do some study of the scriptures before you make such broad statements. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 23 2004 : 8:50:24 PM
|
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 24 2004 : 11:10:20 AM
|
quote:
i personally am an atheist, although a passive one.
i think people should believe whatever they're comfortable believing, and the fact that i dont believe in god doesnt mean that you shouldnt.
Jesus, for example, allegedly came to earth so many years ago that whether he did or didnt is unclear... no one knows who really wrote the bible, etc...
so if you believe in god, or in more than one of them for that matter, i say go ahead.
-ithi
Ithiliani,
There's so much confusion in the world. It's understandable that you are somewhat unsure of what is, what was, & what may be - but despite the confusion there are certain known facts regarding the event that changed all human history & the source & nature of Sacred Scripture. It's unfortunate that you've not had the opportunity to encounter the Scriptures before disbelieving them. I'd urge you to read the Scriptures [just a small reading to begin with] & then bring your discussion back here. There's quite a few among us who would love such a conversation. You might first try reading the Gospel of John, the Magnificat, the Sermon on the Mount, or from the Old Testament; the Psalms [beautiful & poetic prayer] - the Canticle of Canticles [the Song of Songs ... meditations of love] - or Isaiah 53 [where you will find Y'shua] ... or Wisdom ... discover what you've not yet encountered. What you will see is the question of God has nothing at all to do with believing according to comfort, but believing according to truth. Even if you believe against God it must have something more than comfort level to call it belief, & you'll have to answer [for yourself & no one else] what is & where does the abstract of thought come from that even allows you to think 'there is no god'?
Lastly, regarding Christ who most definitely lived & was crucified in Palestine ... the only question to ask is; Who is Christ?
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 24 2004 : 11:22:23 AM
|
| Ithiliana, The evidence that Jesus was a historical person is great.Outside the gospels he is mentioned in the writings of Tacitus,Suetonius and Josephus.Remember also how we measure time: B.C.(before Christ)and A.D.(anno Domini)in the year of our Lord.Yes,he certainly made his mark. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 24 2004 : 3:31:53 PM
|
Oooops! I just went back and re-read my post above, and realize now that it sounded really, really abrupt. Sorry! Didn't mean for it to come out quite in that way.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 24 2004 : 8:50:06 PM
|
i do not exclude the possibility that Jesus Christ was a historical figure or even that he was crucified... all im saying is that i dont believe that he was the son of god.
Scripture may be beautiful (which it is, by the way, they read it out loud at a soup kitchen i volunteer at because its a religious organization and it is wonderfully written), but beautiful doesn't make it divine. However, i do hope to read the Bible sometime... if only because it is the source of so many literary allusions, as well as the #1 bestseller in the world. it should make for some interesting reading.
theresa, i like the quote, though i disagree. does the fact that i dont believe in flying pink hippos mean that they exist? or, to rephrase to fit the quote, "if there were no pink flying hippos, there would be no people who didnt believe in them." human beings are endowed with imagination - they like to make things up. like pink flying hippos.
BTW, please do not think i am comparing god to a hippo. i respect all your belief in him, and by no means wish to degrade him. that was merely to illustrate my point. |
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 24 2004 : 9:32:38 PM
|
Point taken about the pink flying hippos, Ithi. However, I find it interesting that those who talk so constantly about God are usually those who insist that there is no God.
I am thankful that I have faith there is God...there are times when only He can comfort. I'm sorry you haven't received that gift. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 25 2004 : 09:37:13 AM
|
quote:
i do not exclude the possibility that Jesus Christ was a historical figure or even that he was crucified... all im saying is that i dont believe that he was the son of god.
Scripture may be beautiful (which it is, by the way, they read it out loud at a soup kitchen i volunteer at because its a religious organization and it is wonderfully written), but beautiful doesn't make it divine. However, i do hope to read the Bible sometime... if only because it is the source of so many literary allusions, as well as the #1 bestseller in the world. it should make for some interesting reading.
Ithiliana,
Apologies for mistyping your name [I didn't really think there were two of you!]. The thing is there is no question about Jesus Christ's existence. You can doubt [and doubt strongly] as to whether or not He is the Son of God, but you can not doubt as to His existence [especially when rooted in a self invoked comfort zone]. That He lived & was crucified is fact, not question. The sole question remains; Who is Christ?
"Beautiful doesn't make it divine."
That's very true and I couldn't agree with you more. While we see the beauty in Scripture we do not say this is proof of its divinity. The world is beautiful but the world is not divinity itself. It is a work of divinity. Creation is beautiful but creation is not divinity itself. It is a work of divinity. Divinity makes beauty.
quote:
theresa, i like the quote, though i disagree. does the fact that i dont believe in flying pink hippos mean that they exist? or, to rephrase to fit the quote, "if there were no pink flying hippos, there would be no people who didnt believe in them." human beings are endowed with imagination - they like to make things up. like pink flying hippos.
BTW, please do not think i am comparing god to a hippo. i respect all your belief in him, and by no means wish to degrade him. that was merely to illustrate my point.
True, too, that disbelief does not validate pink hippos - but I think Chesterton's point has been missed. Pink hippos are not the source of your thought, they are within your thought, as are all the imaginings a mind can engage. But, the thought itself ... as a long time avowed atheist Chesterton thought his way to God before having faith in God. [I think, therefore, I am ... that I am I must have a source of being.] As you say yourself, Ithiliana, humans are "endowed" with imagination - they are not the imagination itself, nor are they imagining their imaginations. |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 25 2004 : 11:01:46 AM
|
quote:
theresa, i like the quote, though i disagree. does the fact that i dont believe in flying pink hippos mean that they exist? or, to rephrase to fit the quote, "if there were no pink flying hippos, there would be no people who didnt believe in them." human beings are endowed with imagination - they like to make things up. like pink flying hippos.
BTW, please do not think i am comparing god to a hippo. i respect all your belief in him, and by no means wish to degrade him. that was merely to illustrate my point.
Been thinking about this, Ithi. By "him", do you mean God? And if so, then, IMO, you're acknowledging His existence. And if it's not God you're referring to, then who is it? |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 25 2004 : 9:19:08 PM
|
by him, i do mean god.
and no, i do not acknowledge his existence in reality, merely his existence in your thoughts and in the thoughts of many others, as well as in many literary works, as i might refer to a character in a book.
quote:
True, too, that disbelief does not validate pink hippos - but I think Chesterton's point has been missed. Pink hippos are not the source of your thought, they are within your thought, as are all the imaginings a mind can engage. But, the thought itself ... as a long time avowed atheist Chesterton thought his way to God before having faith in God. [I think, therefore, I am ... that I am I must have a source of being.] As you say yourself, Ithiliana, humans are "endowed" with imagination - they are not the imagination itself, nor are they imagining their imaginations.
it is true that Chesterton thought himself all the way to "i must have a source of being". but does this source of being nessesarily have to be god? can it not be, for example, the random patterns of nature, the random combinations of chemicals that eventually formed amino acids and started life (or so scientists think)?
|
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 25 2004 : 9:36:52 PM
|
I suppose this can be discussed and argued to no end. Just let me say this and then I'll shut up...
If you are right and I am wrong, then when we die I am dead and you are dead...
If I am right and you are wrong, then when we die I have life everlasting and you are dead. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - March 25 2004 : 10:55:03 PM
|
I love this drawing!!! HE is my strength!!!
Theresa, everlasting life sounds pretty darn good to me!!!
Kay
Image Insert:
30.77 KB |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 25 2004 : 11:02:17 PM
|
quote:
it is true that Chesterton thought himself all the way to "i must have a source of being". but does this source of being nessesarily have to be god? can it not be, for example, the random patterns of nature, the random combinations of chemicals that eventually formed amino acids and started life (or so scientists think)?
1) The source of being has to be the source of being. Whether we call this source God, Supreme Being, Creator, or First Cause is, for now, irrelevant. It remains the source of being.
2) If nature has patterns it can not be random. If nature is random there is no pattern, only accidental happenings. Chaos can not produce order. Did nature create itself?
3) Where did the chemicals & amino acids come from?
4) How could non-living [or dead] matter produce living matter? How could dead elements start life?
5) What is the source of nature, chemicals, amino acids, and the action of existence? Even a big bang needs a first spark. The first movement needs a mover. The first action needs a first cause.
6) There are atheists, agnostics, & theists among the body of scholars, researchers, & probers we call scientists. Science & theology are separate realms that seek answers for different questions. One's business is the study of God, the other's is the study of the physical world. They don't negate each other, they complement each realm's truths.
7) Is it possible or even conceivable that a simple chemical combination can produce a thing greater & more complex than its own elemental structure - like you thinking - or you thinking about the simple chemical combination as your source of being when the potential source can not even think at all? |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 28 2004 : 10:48:59 PM
|
1. yea, i agree... the only question is, is that source something that purposely created us? or are we, in fact, an accident?
2. random patterns is an oxymoron. *sorry*, its just so commonly used i didnt stop to think about it. randomness is a better word. and if by 'nature' you mean the stuff on this planet, then yes, it created itself. if you mean the universe, then i dunno how it came to be. maybe it just always was. i mean, the same can be applied to god... did god create himself? (i kinda forget what they told us at my russian orthodox school... something about how he came to be before the beginning of time or something... i forget -_-;
3. amino acids are combinations of chemicals. chemicals are prolly as old as the universe. again, i dont know how it got there. science isnt that far yet.
4. well, life is a series of complex chemical reactions. and chemicals are not alive. so here we have dead elements making up life.
5. so, assuming there really is god, where was the spark that brought him to being?
6. yea... but they both ask 'where did we come from?' theologists say god. scientists say apes. catholic schools forbid the teaching of this theory. another thing... there were two scientists (i forget their names, i'll look it up later) who simulated the environment on prehistoric earth and managed to produce amino acids out of simple chemicals (O, H, C). i think that it is possible to create life anew, the way it happened the first time. i spoke to my bio teacher about this possibility, and he says that the reason noone has ever attempted it because a scientist who would do such a thing wouldnt live a year. some religious fanatic would prolly assasinate him for playing 'god'. the church is not a power to be crossed. but im getting off topic :)
7. yea. who cares if it can think?it doesnt need to. all it needs is darwin's theory of natural selection.
theresa - that is an excellent observation, except that i think that if you're right, ill prolly go to purgatory or something cuz im a nonbeliever. ahhhh, w/e. and you're absolutely right about the other thing, too. we can argue forever and not get anywhere at all. so thats all i have to say. |
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - March 30 2004 : 2:23:53 PM
|
Thanks, Ithiliana, for your responses.
[ The source of being has to be the source of being. Whether we call this source God, Supreme Being, Creator, or First Cause is, for now, irrelevant. It remains the source of being.
1. yea, i agree... the only question is, is that source something that purposely created us? or are we, in fact, an accident?]
A creative first cause then? Agreed? The question of purpose or accident; it's a basic philosophical question. It's the question man has always asked - what is the meaning of life? Science can not answer this question, philosophers seek answers to this question, & theists believe they have discovered the answer to this question. It's a good question, Ithiliana. Think of this - if there is this creative first cause [that must by its own creative nature be great & deliberate] that existed before all creation, is it possible such omnipotence can do anything by accident? Would it not be a contradiction of its own nature to accidently create? The philosophers of all ages have looked around them - in the physical world, in the heavens, in the seasons, in humanity - & what they observed was incredible, awesome, beautiful, perfect order, and what they concluded was that there must be a divine power that "breathed" life into existence. The next question has always been; why?
[ If nature has patterns it can not be random. If nature is random there is no pattern, only accidental happenings. Chaos can not produce order. Did nature create itself?
2. random patterns is an oxymoron. *sorry*, its just so commonly used i didnt stop to think about it. randomness is a better word. and if by 'nature' you mean the stuff on this planet, then yes, it created itself. if you mean the universe, then i dunno how it came to be. maybe it just always was. i mean, the same can be applied to god... did god create himself? (i kinda forget what they told us at my russian orthodox school... something about how he came to be before the beginning of time or something... i forget -_-;]
Isn't that strange - that we should so commonly use such an oxymoronic phrase? Nature can not have created itself. Forget about philosophy or theology; science disproves such a hypothesis. When you say this you are forgetting the first source of being [which you've already agreed on]. Nature, or the 'stuff on the planet' is chemical/physical matter. A rock. A tree. A river. All 3 contain the natural elements yet only one is living. What is the difference that makes the chemically composed tree alive & the chemically composed rock & water not alive? Nowhere in the natural world do we see pure creative energy at work. We see procreation & regeneration, but never self-creation. All life works of nature have physical/chemical matter that pre-exists the new life.
The universe; yes, it is rational to say 'I don't know how it came to be' - & it is rational to notice that it CAME TO BE & did not always exist. Again, science confirms this. What you are doing is wondering just so far & no further. Science can not answer this question of how it came to be either; science can only discover how it continued to be. Regarding God; well, no ... you can not say the same thing [He was created & did He create Himself?] One of the proofs of God is the infinite mystery of His having ALWAYS been. Reason - your own reason - tells you God could not have created Himself [nothing can do that] & yet there must have been a First Existence. The First Existence [God] always was - He did not come to be, He always was. Anything & everything else of creation came of this First Existence. The universe could not be the First Cause itself as it has all the secondary qualities [matter, spatial confinements, birth, death, time, natural law, etc.] of existence & leaves the question of First Source of Being unanswered. This is the mystery of God - we can reason His being before all other being - that He never came to be but always was - H |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 30 2004 : 10:15:37 PM
|
ooooh, wow! i'm overwhelmed.
lainey, i get the feeling you've had occasion to argue this before...
your points are excellent, very well thought through and make a lot of sense.
quote:
The philosophers of all ages have looked around them - in the physical world, in the heavens, in the seasons, in humanity - & what they observed was incredible, awesome, beautiful, perfect order, and what they concluded was that there must be a divine power that "breathed" life into existence.
it has been said that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. There is no one single, absolute standard of beauty or perfection. we see beauty around us, bacause it is what we grew up with and so have come to consider it as such. if we were born and lived in an arid desert, than we would find beauty in that, too. (as im sure the arabs do.)and whats to say that the balance of nature (which i assume is what you mean by 'perfect order') wasn't brought about by the fact that everything out of balance with nature became extinct. (as humans probably will soon.)
quote:
Isn't that strange - that we should so commonly use such an oxymoronic phrase? Nature can not have created itself. Forget about philosophy or theology; science disproves such a hypothesis. When you say this you are forgetting the first source of being [which you've already agreed on]. Nature, or the 'stuff on the planet' is chemical/physical matter. A rock. A tree. A river. All 3 contain the natural elements yet only one is living. What is the difference that makes the chemically composed tree alive & the chemically composed rock & water not alive? Nowhere in the natural world do we see pure creative energy at work. We see procreation & regeneration, but never self-creation. All life works of nature have physical/chemical matter that pre-exists the new life.
The universe; yes, it is rational to say 'I don't know how it came to be' - & it is rational to notice that it CAME TO BE & did not always exist. Again, science confirms this. What you are doing is wondering just so far & no further. Science can not answer this question of how it came to be either; science can only discover how it continued to be. Regarding God; well, no ... you can not say the same thing [He was created & did He create Himself?] One of the proofs of God is the infinite mystery of His having ALWAYS been. Reason - your own reason - tells you God could not have created Himself [nothing can do that] & yet there must have been a First Existence. The First Existence [God] always was - He did not come to be, He always was. Anything & everything else of creation came of this First Existence. The universe could not be the First Cause itself as it has all the secondary qualities [matter, spatial confinements, birth, death, time, natural law, etc.] of existence & leaves the question of First Source of Being unanswered. This is the mystery of God - we can reason His being before all other being - that He never came to be but always was - He is not physical in essence, but pure spirit - and our finite minds can not possibly comprehend the infinite eternity of God. [Russian Orthodoxy teaches this same thing; He always was.]
rocks and water do not contain the three nessesary chemicals for organic material (ie. H O and C. of course, even if one were to lump all these three together one would not get a living thing. it must be taken into account that life developed over millions of years.
and if god could have always existed, what prevents the universe from doing so? why do these particualar secondary qualities disqualify it?
and you speak of god's mystery |
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - March 31 2004 : 07:14:10 AM
|
Ithi,
You raise an interesting point about purgatory. Not being Roman Catholic, I'm not as educated on this as you might think...so I looked it up. Purgatory is a state, according to Roman Catholic belief, in which persons who die in the friendship of God but without having fully made amends for their failings must atone for them by suffering before being admitted into Heaven.
Is that how you see it? Lainey want to weigh in on this one?
Just trying to educate myself further. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ithiliana
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 07 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - April 01 2004 : 9:53:44 PM
|
| er... basically, the way i see it is purgatory is where people go that neither deserve heaven nor hell. since i dont believe in god, i dont deserve heaven (or so i would assume) but ive never really done anything terrible, and so far i tend to believe that my good outweighs my bad. so god cant very well send me off to hell (or rather he can, but he wont if he's fair. after all, isn't it a bit vain of god if he were to send ppl to hell just for not believing in him?) so by process of elimination, purgatory is the only place for me to go. but lainey, you're the expert on this kind of thing, so if you can explain to me/us exactly what it is and how you get there, that would be cool. |
Le Poisson Rouge Seudois du Chaos
Conspiracy of One |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - April 01 2004 : 11:25:47 PM
|
er... basically, the way i see it is purgatory is where people go that neither deserve heaven nor hell. since i dont believe in god, i dont deserve heaven (or so i would assume) but ive never really done anything terrible, and so far i tend to believe that my good outweighs my bad. so god cant very well send me off to hell (or rather he can, but he wont if he's fair. after all, isn't it a bit vain of god if he were to send ppl to hell just for not believing in him?) so by process of elimination, purgatory is the only place for me to go. but lainey, you're the expert on this kind of thing, so if you can explain to me/us exactly what it is and how you get there, that would be cool.
Ithi,
You are right. Lainey is the expert on these things, but I just had to say one thing. I always thought that purgatory was was where you went to be cleansed before going to heaven. You will eventually go to heaven when you are clean and pure enough. I may be wrong on this, but that is what I always thought purgatory was. So, if you don't believe in God, then I don't think that you can go to purgatory. In fact, if you don't believe in God, then isn't that considered rejecting God, and doesn't anyone who rejects God go to hell? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you're going to hell. I'm just saying that is what I have always heard. Acually, I have only heard about pergatory from friends. I was raised to believe that there is only heaven and hell, and you go to one or the other. I like the idea of purgatory to tell you the truth. Just don't tell my parents that I said that!!!
Kay
|
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - April 02 2004 : 02:05:26 AM
|
I feel like a tardy schoolgirl late for class ... again. Sorry.
Ithiliana, you have a very, very good mind. Overwhelmed ... overwhelmed ... I know. I feel overwhelmed by God everyday. I'm glad to see you continueing the discussion. Excuse the delays in replying ...
quote:
Ithi,
You raise an interesting point about purgatory. Not being Roman Catholic, I'm not as educated on this as you might think...so I looked it up. Purgatory is a state, according to Roman Catholic belief, in which persons who die in the friendship of God but without having fully made amends for their failings must atone for them by suffering before being admitted into Heaven.
Is that how you see it? Lainey want to weigh in on this one?
Just trying to educate myself further.
Theresa, what a good & timely point. This is the Lenten Season - the most sacred of Christian days; a time of atonement which has so much to do with this question of purgatory. Thanks for bringing it out for a better look.
You've pretty much got it. Purgatory is a state [rather than a place] where a redeemed soul is purged of all that is imperfect or impure [the consequences of sin] prior to entering into the eternal life of God. We often speak of going before God, or of being in God's presence in our afterlife but that's really not quite accurate. It's the way we think - we use and need images such as a throned, bearded God or a pitchfork weilding red devil to comprehend what is essentially spirit. Our minds have trouble 'picturing' things not physical. In reality, heaven is not a place where one 'goes to' in eternal bliss, but a perfection one enters into as a soul is united to God. In other words, we return to our first source of being - God - not before or outside of God, but united into Him.
Since God is by His own essence pure and perfect, infinite and omnipotent, simple and one, immovable and immutable; how does an impure and imperfect soul come into God? It can not because this would change God's own nature, His ipsum esse [Being Itself - thank you, St. Thomas Aquinas] which is unchangeable. An imperfect soul united in God's perfect being would change that which can not change. It would corrupt that which is incorruptible. An impossible thing. If a soul remained impure and imperfect [forgiveness does not erase the 'mark' or imprint of sin] it could not have eternal existence with God. So what divine option does this leave? Either there is a means of purification after death [in life, too, which also has to do with suffering] or there is no possibility of entering into God. We know the second option not to be true since man is eternal, he is flesh but essentially spirit, he is created for eternity, and he has been redeemed at the cost of divine blood. [I know that's jumping ahead, Ithiliana, but it's still part of the equation.]
God is merciful, just, & He is love. So, rather than abandon man to his imperfect nature & consequential exile God provides this purification, purging, purgatory. Assume a man has sought and received absolute forgiveness for his sins. At the moment of death does he still bear the impurities of a soul who has sinned, even though forgiven? He does, for sure. From death to passing into Heaven, or into God, there is a lapse of time or being - an interim state that can not be measured in time but can be measured by state. For instance, if we assume the man's soul is to be with God, the most accurate thing we can say is that there is a change, a transfer or transport which we call death. If that man's soul was to be with God even in an instantaneous flash, it is still at best an instant. The death of the body, the "departure" of the soul, & the entry into heaven is not simultaneous. There is a moment, a p |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - April 02 2004 : 02:18:11 AM
|
Kay said;
"I like the idea of purgatory to tell you the truth."
So does God! :) |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - April 02 2004 : 07:15:14 AM
|
Thank you so much, Lainey. That clears it up a lot for me. I've never really thought much about purgatory but what you said makes perfect sense.
Geez...I'm always learning something here. Have a wonderful Easter season. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.41 seconds |
 |
|
You may be an atheist if....
