kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Darren F. Provine) (08/12/89)
I've lots of mail and a few articles here, and I also have an Epilogue to my earlier posting. I'll just pick up where I left off last time, and hope to address most of what needs addressing . . . The person mentioned in my last article saw it, and after reading it he asked me (utterly astonished) "Did I say *that*?" After assuring him he did, he apologised and offered the twofold explanation that he was taken by surprise by my statement, and meant to be questioning what I said (instead of passing judgement). [ The careful reader will note that this was the hypothesis suggested by our Thoughtful Moderator. ] I accepted his apology, we've straightened ourselves out, and I am once again the Jolly Heretic of the Baptist Church. (Do keep in mind, however, that a `liberal' Southern Baptist would be considered a Ultra-Fundie virtually anywhere else. 1/2 8^) Maybe the net is useful after all . . . -=-=- That leaves us with a few dangling loose ends from my last article, which I'll see if I can't weave together (or at least make into a hopelessly tangled knot 8-). Firstly, there's the observation that I carefully left out the context of the conversation in question -- it was about imagery from Dante, and I was attempting to discourage overemphasis on metaphors as being literally true. That's what so amazed me about the answer -- I didn't imagine that anybody over the age of 12 took that stuff literally anyway (well, except maybe Jack Chick 1/2 8-), and had I been allowed to finish my paragraph then that would have been clear. Now, of course, there's the question of what I actually think (since I've started the discussion and said essentially nothing). For starters, I don't think Hell (or Heaven) is a place in our usual terminology of 3-dimensional coordiate space. You don't `go there' in the same way that you go to Hell, Michigan. If I'm wrong, well, it'll be neat if we get pictures from Pioneer... I'm not sure about time, but I tend to doubt that there's any of that `in' either Heaven or Hell. As has been mentioned in the Trinity War over in talk.religion.misc, God's existence is not required to be on the same plane than ours is, so assuming that (Heaven|Hell) is going to be a lot like the existence we have now seems a tad bogus. Given all that, the idea of a `literal Hell' (meaning eternal torment in a place with Bad Stuff) makes no sense to me -- if there's no `there' there, and if there's no `eternal' there, then `it' must be something else. Now, the standard objection here would be that it's speculation (which is true), and that it's not in the Bible (which is also true). But it doesn't *contradict* the Bible in any way that I'm aware of, and I'm not making any pronouncements about what Hell is (since I haven't been there myself). And the specifics don't seem terribly important in practice -- most people agree that there is some kind of judgement, and Jesus spoke of Gehenna as a Bad `Place' -- so quibbling over the particulars of what Bad `Things' are `There' seems to me a divisive exercise, and to no particular end. (That is, having arguments and using doctrinal differences to draw lines between `us' and `them' -- having an interesting philosophical discussion about this stuff is a different matter.) Brian T. Coughlin's theory of being reincarnated and sent back to Earth "until you get it right" is interesting, but it seems to go against the Scriptural statement that "it is appointed to each man once to die" (in Hebrews 9:27). Have you considered that, Brian, and if so what is your resolution? Walter Smith says that he does believe there is a Hell, and as he doesn't elaborate on what he thinks it is I suppose the standard idea is what he means. If I'm incorrect, Walter, can you add something? Walter asks: >This person, does he also say you must believe in the trinity, or >any other particular doctrines? As the moderator guessed, the person in question wasn't laying down any Laws of Correct Belief when we talked, but was merely astonished. His comment during our more recent discussion was "I think that the Word of God is powerful enough to speak to people and make them Christians even if their beliefs are wrong, when their hearts are in the right place. I guess that's sort of Christian-By-Accident." So maybe even I qualify. 8^) Herr Moderator commented: >The nearest the Southern Baptists have to an authoritative confession >(unless the recent attempt to purge "liberals" from the seminaries has >caused things to change) is a document from 1925. _The Baptist Faith and Message_ is still the closest thing we have to a creed, and it is still non-binding (last I heard). I don't expect it to become binding (although You Never Can Tell). [The astute reader will notice that The Baptist Faith and Message was promulgated in 1925. --clh] kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Now I'm afraid to meet Michael Siemon; he'll probably have three heads or something..." -- Charley Wingate, after we had dinner with Bill Jefferys.
nlt@macbeth.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (08/14/89)
Darren Provine, speaking about disputes over the nature of Hell, writes: > And the specifics don't seem terribly important in practice -- most people > agree that there is some kind of judgement, and Jesus spoke of Gehenna as a > Bad `Place' -- so quibbling over the particulars of what Bad `Things' are > `There' seems to me a divisive exercise, and to no particular end. (That > is, having arguments and using doctrinal differences to draw lines between > `us' and `them' -- having an interesting philosophical discussion about this > stuff is a different matter.) I agree that drawing lines between "us" and "them" based on speculative beliefs is undesirable. However, I can see beliefs about the nature of Hell having importance in practice, in that (for me, at least) the existence and nature of Hell has implications for the goodness and badness of the creation and, by extension, of God. If, for example, there is a state of everlasting torment which many people eventually endure, then the creation contains an infinite cruelty which God either cannot or will not redeem. It is the ancient Problem of Pain ("How can a good, omnipotent God coexist with suffering?") rewritten in infinite terms. The problem becomes that much more serious if it is combined with a soteriological system based either on predestination or on correctly-guessed belief. More benevolent eschatological systems -- universalism, for instance, or Hell as annihilation, or Hell as a state of finite duration -- give us a different picture of the creation and the Creator: evil and suffering are temporary, and good is ultimately triumphant. My own beliefs are a firm "I don't know" :-) , so I am not arguing for one view over another here; several different views can be supported from Scripture. I am arguing that one's answer to just how "Bad" a "Place" Hell is can affect one's beliefs about God (To what extent is God an infinitely good being, to be trusted, and to what extent a cruel being, to be appeased?), and that can have practical implications. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You wanted justice, didn't you? Nancy Tinkham There isn't any. There's the world..." nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu -A. MacLeish rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt