Philosophy Now Forum

Basically, the Orthodox Church is the true, historic church.

After the western half of the Roman Empire fell, the church in western Europe became disconnected from the rest of Christianity. The only unifying force in western life, the Apostolic See of Rome, became the de facto governing force out of necessity. And because Rome is the only Apostolic See in western Europe (the East has four), the bishop of rome (Papa, or Pope) became seen as a sort of infallible mouthpiece of God on Earth.

And before you question my words, consider this: if the papacy had any theological legitimacy (in other words, if its alleged infallibility and supremacy were universally acknowledged throughout Christendom since the beginning), then why did its proponents create forged documents in an attempt to verify the historicity of such a novel idea?

Getting back on point -- from the sixth through to the sixteenth centuries, Roman Christianity began to merge its thinking with legalistic philosophy. They invented concepts such as purgatory, indulgences, statue veneration, the Filioque, papal infallibility, and a host of other strange new ideas.

But one in particular which I find interesting is the Roman Christian concept of hell. The true Christian (Orthodox) teaching of hell has been the same for two millenia, but most in Europe and the Americas have absolutely NO idea what it is!

So here:

http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

Very interesting. Watching the installation of the new pope though I see that people are as fooled by the Catholic mirage more than ever. Media doesn't dare burst the bubble and keep talking of hope and the 'humble pope'. I will believe a pope is humble when, and only when, one acknowledges the old lie that the Pope is direct lineage from St Peter. Sense of superiority and the crimes that inevitably flow from such sense will be hampered with that single admission.

That is pretty much what I as a Roman Catholic know of heaven and hell and the afterlife from the teaching within my tradition to be honest, it comes as no revelation or surprise and is not in contra-distinction from anything I know.

The greatest point of all is that if there is a hell, it is seperation from God, and if it be conceived of as a prison or locked door it is one of the inmates own construction and they hold the keys, which is clearly the same concept as what is recognised within that essay, just formulated differently.

What interests me is that the OP uses words like "new" and "novel" as though they are synomynous with false or untrue and there's no real grounds or evidence to believe that, any religion which is based upon tradition and has traditionalism as its specific strength and character, like the RCC, will of necessity have a relationship towards innovation and integrate it in a "reflective conservatism" manner, that just makes sense and is the difference between a living faith or living religion and a dead religion or attempt to preserve religion unchanged like a relic or artifact or frozen in time.

doesn't the bible say somewhere that god desires everyone to be saved

and is it conceivable that god may desire something and yet it will not occur?

so universalism does seem to follow from the bible

what does eastern orthodoxy have to say on universalism?

Kayla wrote:doesn't the bible say somewhere that god desires everyone to be saved

and is it conceivable that god may desire something and yet it will not occur?

so universalism does seem to follow from the bible

what does eastern orthodoxy have to say on universalism?

I think nothing is impossible to God, whether it is written or not, so it is not impossible that many will be saved, although what is meant by being saved?

In many of the senses in which I have read it it means eternal life, so that you do not die or perish into nothingness when you do die, either by going to an afterlife or being resurrected for the final judgement which preceeds the world to come.

Those are kind of selfishing or existentialist reasons for desiring salvation, kind of things people would think up to deal with the stress of living and approach or possibility of death, I dont think that's a sufficient idea of what salvation is for me. Its meant to be about being with God. In that sense I think this original piece is correct to highlight the need of preparation for that.

universalism does not imply that there are no consequences to sin

everyone, even satan and hitler and middle school hall monitors will eventually be reconciled with god in universalist view

but that is not the same thing, and does not in any way imply consequence free actions

i have this image of hitler having to personally apologize to every one of is victims, having finally grasped the full significance of what he has done - reconciliation is possible but it has to be earned

Please review this web link, with some information concerning heaven, purgatory, and hell.

http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/he ... -hell.html

doesn't the bible say somewhere that god desires everyone to be saved

and is it conceivable that god may desire something and yet it will not occur?


Answer: Yes to the first one, and yes to the second one.

On the second point, if the Supreme Being were to "will" something, but to "will" even more strongly to allow genuine human freedom, then the two could both be true. If I "will" my child to learn to play piano but she embraces the drums, I may still "will" her to play piano but be content that she has chosen the drums (even though I don't like drums) because I value her freedom and individuality. I may see a greater good in allowing her the conditions of free choice than of forcing her to comply with my wishes, even if the result is that she picks an instrument that gives me a headache. Even if what she chooses is something I definitely see as destructive to her and destructive to our relationship, I may allow it if I realize that taking her prisoner and forcing her to do my will would ultimately entail the destruction of her personality.

Or, to take another analogy, I may give my teenage son the keys to the car, even though I know there's just a chance he'll wrap my car around a pole and kill himself. I may prefer to take the chance, so that he can learn to drive and be responsible; and I may realize that if I do not allow him to be in jeopardy, he never will grow up. I may consider allowing him even just the *chance* to grow up is a greater good than absolutely safeguarding his bodily security. I may also understand that as his father, I will never have a genuine relationship with him if I do not allow him to become an individual, and then to choose whether or not he wants such a relationship with me. I "will" him to recognize that he is my son, and to be a loving one -- but I cannot force it, because "forced love" is an oxymoron.

Human free will may be a prerequisite to genuine relationship to God. If so, there is no inconsistency in saying God "wills" something that does not automatically take place. He cannot "make" people love Him, just like he cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, or a rock so big He cannot lift it. Such apparent "failure" is not real failure at all, because the concept asked of God in each case is itself is incoherent. And we can't blame God if it turns out that reasonableness is one of His features, so performing self-contradictory tasks is not something we can ask of Him.

The problem only appears if we think of the Supreme Being's as being the ONLY real "will" in the universe: in that case, no one else's "will" matters. Neither does human action, of course. That's' why universalism has a curious dark side. It assumes that human choice does not ultimately matter. Whatever one does, wherever one places one's loyalties and wherever one claims one wants to be when one "rings down the curtain," one is not permitted to choose where one's ultimate destiny will be. Human choice is irrelevant in such a universe, and one wonders, then, if character, behaviour, loyalty, personhood or values are also mere fictions to be cast aside in the final analysis.

Troubling, no?

Qman wrote:

Please review this web link, with some information concerning heaven, purgatory, and hell.

http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/he ... -hell.html



Here, below, is everything the Bible has to say about Purgatory...










(That's right: absolutely nothing.)

Hmm, really? The bible does not say that you'll be escorted out from the wedding feast when wearing dirty clothes, or that the angels will expel you if you try to climb over the walls to get into heaven? So then, where do you get cleaned up and dressed properly to come before God? In Hell? Certainly not by the erroneous claim of being reborn on earth. That's a really dirty place and believe me, you are tainted. You have to first get cleaned of bigotry if you think you have an automatic ticket into heaven. That assumption alone will put you in purgatory.

Qman:

If you mean the parable of the wedding feast, there isn't even a hint in that one that anyone removed from the feast *ever* gets in. As for the angels and the walls of Heaven, as you say, I can't even recognize any Bible passage to which you might be referring.

Your second question: where do "you" get cleaned up...do you mean the literal "you," (meaning "me"), or the figurative "you" (meaning an unspecified person, "one")?

The Bible says, "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this, the Judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, if you want to know where): therefore, there would be no reincarnation, if that's what you mean.

"Bigotry," you say? By definition that means, roughly, "superstitious prejudice." I can't imagine what you are referring to, since all I've talked about are the facts so far. Facts, by definition are not "superstitious" or "prejudiced": you may dispute their interpretation with contrary facts and arguments if you wish; that doesn't make you a bigot either. So long as we stick to the facts, we're okay on that score.

The facts: Do a concordance search of the Bible. You won't find the word Purgatory, or even the *idea* of Purgatory anywhere in it. It's just not there.

Here's another fact: you can find out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the Catholic printer, Ligouri Publications, and bearing the Imprimi Potest of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, that Purgatory was not even Catholic doctrine until 605 A.D. (pages 268-269, if you want to check).

A further fact: The Orthodox Church has officially rejected belief in Purgatory. As the Catholic Encyclopaedia puts it quite plainly, "The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory…" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Imprimatur John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York). Protestant groups, of course, almost all deny its existence.

Here's a final fact: if you want to fear something, do what the Bible says: "...fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell." (Matthew 10:28 if you want to check that fact too).

Purgatory? That's a fabrication made of thin air.

Soren:
Please refer to Wikipedia. Concept of purgatory predates Christ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_purgatory, Eastern Orthodox church has form of purgatory. John 10:1 for scaling wall. I do believe in the Catholic notion of private revelation (which is not church teaching). Also, I like logical arguments and situations so that I am inclined to give some credence to what the Medjugorje visionaries describe concerning heaven, purgatory, hell. To me it is illogical to assume that to God the human state is simply binary upon death, black or white and no grey zone. This is the dictate of my logic. Also, please remember, your assertions are unproven and unprovable and you cannot prove something else with an unproven (the same would apply to me of course). However, I can assign some validity (better probability) to my argument if I have confidence that Medjugorje is a supernatural event, and the scientific and medical community has concluded that it is.

That a concept predates the Bible is a non-sequitur for the idea that that makes it true. Many silly things predate sensible ones. Gnosticism also predates the Bible, as does sacrificing your sons to Molech in the fire. You missed the key point: my point was that Purgatory is not *in the Bible.* (That's still true, by the way.)

John 10:1? Seriously? It's impossible to even *begin* to make any kind of case for Purgatory from that...Not only does it not even mention Purgatory, if you look at the context it clearly identifies Christ as the central metaphor. And where is all this stuff you claim about angels chucking people over the walls of Heaven? It's not in the Bible either: and it's certainly not in John 10:1.

My most immediate question about Medjugorje would be this: what would you conclude if what the proponents claim to have experienced (however sincerely they may have felt it) *contradicts* the Bible? That is clearly what is happening. So you need to decide which source of revelation "wins," in such cases.

And "logic", you say? Well, it's not readily apparent to me why a "grey zone" is somehow more "logical" than a binary? Please lay out that logic for me. Show me your syllogism: I'd be fascinated to see it. (Or by "logic" did you simply mean something informal, like, "how I feel," not something rational per se?) Because there's no ready sense in which "logic" is involved in your preference for Purgatory over the two alternatives the Bible actually mentions.

As for your idea that, as you say, my "assertions are unproven," it's quite untrue. Actually, my assertions are *very* provable, since they are simple claims about what is or is not in the Bible. They are not claims about what I believe, or about ecstatic visions, far less about personal preferences I have...they are simple, checkable facts that you can investigate by looking at the text of the Bible itself. Either it does say Purgatory exists, or it does not. (I can save you further searching: it does not.)

Not only that, but the other sources I quoted were your own Catholic sources, so you can check them too. I even gave you page numbers.

The main point is this: you need to check the text, not believe "opinions" about it. I invite you to do that, because that's what your real argument is with...the Bible, not me.

That a concept predates the Bible is a non-sequitur for the idea that that makes it true. Many silly things predate sensible ones. Gnosticism also predates the Bible, as does sacrificing your sons to Molech in the fire. You missed the key point: my point was that Purgatory is not *in the Bible.* (That's still true, by the way.)

-Sorry, but you are obviously incorrect. Purgatory is in the bible. Even if it started as an early concept that is still purgatory. Now, just because you think purgatory is a silly concept does not mean it's not purgatory and not in the bible. Also, you are once more violating the rule that you cannot use an unproven to prove your point. You cannot prove that purgatory is a silly concept. That's just your opinion. If purgatory exists you have mud on your face. I also have an opinion just like you which is, not having purgatory is far more silly and downright illogical.

John 10:1? Seriously? It's impossible to even *begin* to make any kind of case for Purgatory from that...Not only does it not even mention Purgatory, if you look at the context it clearly identifies Christ as the central metaphor. And where is all this stuff you claim about angels chucking people over the walls of Heaven? It's not in the Bible either: and it's certainly not in John 10:1.

-Well, why is Christ identified as the central metaphor? Because you can't get to him by climbing over the wall in a clandestine manner like a thief. Btw, that proves purgatory straight from the mouth of John. If there was a binary only situation there couldn't be any climbers trying to illegally get into heaven. There would be souls in hell and in heaven and neither would do any climbing. So assume there were climbers then the angles would of course chuck them right back.

My most immediate question about Medjugorje would be this: what would you conclude if what the proponents claim to have experienced (however sincerely they may have felt it) *contradicts* the Bible? That is clearly what is happening. So you need to decide which source of revelation "wins," in such cases.

-We live in a probabilistic world. I am only 100% certain of approximately 13 billion facts (it's a moving number). Namely, that 6.5 billion people were born and are alive and 6.5 billion will die. In Medjugorje for 30 years now 6 seers are having visitations on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis from the Virgin Mary. She answered their questions about heaven, purgatory and hell and even showed them the places in visions and gave two of them an actual tour. Of course you might or might not take their word for it. Fact is that the extensive scientific and medical testing done on them over the decades produced the current consensus that a supernatural event is taking place. Consequently, in combination with the bible, that increases the probability, however slightly, for the existence of purgatory compared to your totally unproven assertions.

And "logic", you say? Well, it's not readily apparent to me why a "grey zone" is somehow more "logical" than a binary? Please lay out that logic for me. Show me your syllogism: I'd be fascinated to see it. (Or by "logic" did you simply mean something informal, like, "how I feel," not something rational per se?) Because there's no ready sense in which "logic" is involved in your preference for Purgatory over the two alternatives the Bible actually mentions.

-As you know, in this life there are some binary events like on/off for a light switch, binary numbers for computers, etc. What is not the case is that there are binary relationships between human beings. Pope Francis just gave a talk that he thinks the most important thing about God and human beings is that they have a relationship. In other words, they don't
act like on/off switches with each other. Rather, there is a continuum, a grey zone,
without which there couldn't be a relationship. This of course implies that our state of grace in God's eye is also a continuum. Hence, purgatory likewise provides the needed continuum in proportion to our state of grace. It is clear that a binary human society could not exist but an analog one can. Thus it is not possible to have a binary relationship with God and purgatory must exist if there is a God.

As for your idea that, as you say, my "assertions are unproven," it's quite untrue. Actually, my assertions are *very* provable, since they are simple claims about what is or is not in the Bible. They are not claims about what I believe, or about ecstatic visions, far less about personal preferences I have...they are simple, checkable facts that you can investigate by looking at the text of the Bible itself. Either it does say Purgatory exists, or it does not. (I can save you further searching: it does not.)

-I don't agree, for the same reason that just because Isaac Asimov wrote or omitted something in his I Robot novel does not make it true and certainly does not prove it. As you say they are claims, and thus have not been proven. You can assign your estimate of your confidence in your historical sources but that takes it right to my probabilistic world. And I have shown above that my probability estimates for purgatory to exist would be much greater then your non-reasoned assertions and unprovable assertion that purgatory is a silly notion.

Not only that, but the other sources I quoted were your own Catholic sources, so you can check them too. I even gave you page numbers.

-The Wiki goes into the Catholic rational and origin of purgatory in much greater detail providing a more comprehensive understanding that contradicts your assertion "not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it's not true."

The main point is this: you need to check the text, not believe "opinions" about it. I invite you to do that, because that's what your real argument is with...the Bible, not me.

-My references show purgatory is based on early tradition even predating Christianity in the Bible. I don't know how you can ignore that. In addition, all information must be evaluated with your native intelligence and with regard to its probability of being of high quality and veracity. Failing that, you are doing yourself and others a disservice. A simple true/false assertion depending on whether it is/is not in the Bible is not good enough.

Qman:

Your so-called "early concept" is not purgatory, but "prayers for the dead," according to your website. It seems rather to confirm my earlier statement, and the certified Catholic sources I pointed you to earlier, say -- that Purgatory itself first appears as a Catholic teaching in the early 600s. Funny that they "overlooked" the whole doctrine so long!

I read your wiki. That link isn't a very good source: just look at how the thing is cobbled together -- the 'research' there is actually not either reliable or well-documented -- which is unlike the stuff I sent you, which was all approved by major Catholic printers or the papacy itself. But let's ignore that for the moment, and pretend your link is useful for something. Your point seems to be "prayers for the dead" are an old practice, one that belonged to all sorts of cults and groups prior to the Catholic discovery of it. Let's grant that: but so what? It's an old idea...so are marrying your sister, devouring children, worshiping pieces of wood, and chopping off heads -- all very ancient practices -- but none of us thinks that their antiquity even remotely counts in favour of the idea of believing in them or practicing them today. "Old" doesn't mean "right". So what's your point? Near as I can see, you've got none on that.

Again...Purgatory is not in the Bible. Just get a concordance. Look up the word "Purgatory." It's not there. Neither will you find the concept anyplace in the Bible.

Not only is your key source highly sketchy, but so is your interpretation of John 10, which you say is about Purgatory. Check verse 10:7-9, where Jesus flatly states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep...I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved..." This fits exactly with what He later says: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6) So it seems perfectly clear that the metaphor in view is exactly as I said before.

As for putting the rest of your explanation of John 10 into place, the "fold" is Heaven, then? Where are the angels of which you spoke? And notice, there's nothing at all in the passage that even remotely could then correspond to Purgatory. To make this passage into something about Purgatory doesn't just amount to "stretching an interpretation"; it's far beyond that. It's making stuff up.

Whatever is going on in Medjugorje, if anything, none of us knows what it is. You haven't been there, I'll warrant. Had you, you might have some evidence you, yourself would have reason to believe; but as it is, you have to take the word of others. Now, that's not always the wrong thing to do, but you know very well that people don't always tell what's really happening, do they? They "spin" things, even when they aren't misrepresenting the facts. And sometimes, in the case of, say taking drugs, having psychotic breaks or being of hysterical disposition, they start believing very deeply in weird things, like alien abductions or astrology charts. But we know better than to take the word of human beings without confirming it, don't we?

By the way, on the Medjugorje thing, you didn't answer my question: if those "revelations" contradict what the Bible says, which source wins? I'll be alert for your answer next time.

Anyway, just for fun, let us suppose that, in fact, some sort of supernatural event is taking place there, and as you claim "scientists" say it's "real". Even were that entirely true, the existence of an apparently supernatural activity would not tell us of the source and nature of that "supernatural" activity. In fact, does not the Bible say to test all things by the Bible itself (see I John 1:4), and especially to be on guard for false prophets who do "signs and wonders" (Matthew 24:24, and II Thessalonians 2:9) that do not come from God, but elsewhere? If so, you're a test short of taking this as seriously as you claim. And if you do test, and find that the Bible and the Medjugorje incidents *do*, in fact, conflict, then you might ask yourself, "Whose word do I have to *take* in order to believe in Medjugorje?" and "Whose Word do I have to *ignore* in order to believe in Medjugorje?"

Next topic: I understand the word "binary"; I didn't need clarification there. I was trying to see why you think that "binary" is inherently less rational than "analog". I still can't see you've got any logic there. For as you say, there *are* real binaries, like light switches, or questions of existence, and so on. Fine. Another binary is good/evil. A further one is alive/dead. There are a lot of them. So what makes "a grey area" somehow more "logical"? It's certainly illogical in the case of light switches, isn't it?

I think you're begging the question here. The real question is, "Is Heaven/Hell" a binary situation or a "Tri-nary" one, Heaven/Purgatory/Hell. I see no reason to write of the binary option of these two possibilities, especially since it's the only description of the situation that the Bible talks about. There's nothing more "relational" about the second option, so you comments on that make no sense to me at all.

That being said, I would agree that relationship is indeed the key issue. But there is no logical connection between the words "relationship" and "Purgatory."

As for your "I don't agree," that's silly. It's like "disagreeing" with the maths tables -- because the facts are there for you to check. It's not an opinion, it's a statement about what the Bible does or does not say; that's all. Such a statement does not require your "agreement," just your willingness to read the book. If I'm wrong, it will then become perfectly clear, and your disagreement will become moot, adding nothing to the question; if I'm right, then when you read it you will see that I am, and your disagreement will be irrelevant.

As for your wiki, it does *not* say what you claim it does. It does not say that Purgatory is mentioned in the Bible. Anyone can go and look, so it's silly to say that.

I'm not ignoring your sources; I'm reading them, but find that you don't tell the truth about them. I'm happy for anyone to go and see. In fact, I really, really hope they do.

You conclude with,

A simple true/false assertion depending on whether it is/is not in the Bible is not good enough.

"Not good enough" for what? Our argument is about what is, or is not *in the Bible*...so how can looking directly to the source in question, the Bible itself, be "not good enough"? Surely it's the *only* rational and scientific way to settle the question of what's in there. What you should know is this: I'm not looking to secondary sources for my statements about the Bible. That's why I can give you the verse references, and invite you to check for yourself.

You'll also notice I don't quote wikis, or take for granted the word of other human beings who claim to have strange experiences. True, I have referred to two non-Biblical sources: but those are your own Catholic approved sources, and then I only used them to show you that your own theologians do not agree with your interpretation of events. However, I'm quite happy to leave every such sources out altogether.

The one source we can't leave out is the one we're talking about: the Bible itself. Surely, if Purgatory existed, it would be a very important topic, and would be found very clearly, very many times in the Bible -- sort of the way "Heaven" and "Hell" are (or Sheol, or Gehenna, or the Lake of Fire). But Purgatory is not there.

Here: everyone can check for him/herself: Go to [http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/] Choose any decent version or translation you like -- there's a side menu containing a whole bunch -- and punch in the word "Purgatory." You'll see; it's not there: not even once.

Total count of references to Purgatory in the Catholic Douay Bible, for example = 0.