Revisiting the "chief of sinners"

I've been on several jury panels where members of the jury pool have stated that because of their religious beliefs, they could not in good conscious be a member of a jury. They stated that to do so would be to violate what they saw as a clear command from Jesus not to judge others.

I admire that sort of consistency of belief in the same way that I admire the Vatican's opposition to the death penalty.

I don't agree with either belief - but I admire it.

I don't think this is rocket science. What I believe is out of bounds for Christians--or anyone who wants to be considered a kind, decent human being--includes more than just "you're going to hell." It also includes personal attacks, insults and insinuations designed to put the other person down or hold them up to ridicule. Of course, jokes, humor, and even a little sarcasm have always been part of human discourse, so there will always be a bit of a line to tread there. But it's pretty safe to say that when the other person says "ouch" you probably hit them too hard and should apologize.

Often the out-of-line comment can be recognized by its totalizing definition of the person as a whole. As in "you are a . . . ." It's not wrong to draw conclusions about a belief or action. It is often, though not always, wrong to draw conclusions about a human being based on that action. If someone says, "I shot a 12-year-old in Iraq," it might not be "judgmental" to respond, "I think it's morally indefensible to kill a child, even when you're at war." It would be judgmental to reply, "Then YOU ARE A MURDERER." Similarly, if someone says "I had an abortion," it might not be judgmental to say, "I believe that abortion is murder." But it would be judgmental to say, again, "Then YOU ARE A MURDERER."

If you think Unitarianism is absurd, you can say, "This belief system doesn't make sense to me," but you can't say, "Anyone who would be a Unitarian is a moral idiot." Or "anyone who could stay in the Catholic Church must be a moral idiot." And so forth. Under some circumstances, I can see how such a definitive statement would not be unduly judgmental. For instance, if a man says "I shot my wife in cold blood," one could fairly say, "Then you are a murderer." This would then be a statement of fact rather than an imputation of evil designed to win an argument.

There, see how easy that is? I realize, however, that if we all behaved this way, it would suck all the fun right out of this, since nobody would be able to preen, posture and prance while cutting more notches into the handle of their trusty six-gun. Thus, my comment is pointless and I am just STUPID and a MORAL IDIOT. Oh, and OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED, as well. And chances are I'm hideous, no one likes me, and I got my education from a diploma mill. ; )

They stated that to do so would be to violate what they saw as a clear command from Jesus not to judge others.

Wow, John, I've never met anybody who claimed that. Either you've seen an extremely unusual group of Christians, or those folks were putting the judge on.

Earth to Rod, John isn't putting us on. There really are such people.

And we are not among them because....?

Re: religious objections to jury duty--yes, I've heard that too, from people who I know sincerely believed it. But from some of the people making the argument, it may just be a more elegant way to get out of jury duty. I've also heard "I could never put anybody in jail, because jail is such an awful place", which of course it is, and "I could never vote to convict on a drug charge because I think the war on drugs is a crock," which of course it is. Whatever one may think of these arguments or the sincerity of those who make them, they are pretty likely to get you out of jury duty. I also know at least one person who claims to have gotten out of it by telling the judge at voir dire, "I wouldn't hang a dog if it was being prosecuted by the Cook County State's Attorney." I don't exactly recommend that, however. In fact, I believe everybody should do jury duty, especially people who sincerely believe the kinds of things cited here.

And yes, I believe that judging is one of the uniquely human things we do. Mostly I get called judgmental when the person who uses the word can't think of any other argument against what I'm saying. It's hard to take that seriously.

OTOH, calling oneself the chief of sinners is, well, grandiose, isn't it?

Yes, Susan, I hear you. I came to the same realization you have, some time ago. This place is really just one great big interactive commercial, since it's all about the number of hits, and it doesn't really matter who gets hurt in the process. That bothered me less in the beginning, when I thought all of us realized that this was just a big word game. Since then, I've seen too many people really get hurt. As Phyllis McGinley said,

Sticks and stones can break my bones,
Aimed with angry art.
Words can sting like anything--
Silence breaks the heart.

That bothers me. It also bothers me that being here tempts me to a certain lack of compassion every day! And it also bothers me that I'm providing acres of free content when I could be working on something for which I'D get paid. ; ) Obviously, I'm getting some benefit from this or I'd have departed. I've enjoyed meeting various funky and spunky avatars. I've enjoyed the give-and-take which I feel has benefited my ability to express myself and has stimulated thought on some interesting subjects. I feel some sympathy for Rod, since if we all started being sensible and kind, there'd probably be fewer posts and he'd lose some of his functionality! But ought a person--speaking in the abstract here--to wish for a function that depends on making people mad and creating division and anger? Very good question.

I would not be tempted to get so pissed off were it not that so many people here represent themselves as Christians and then say things that appall me. But really--why should I be mad? Jesus has been dealing with that for a long time before I arrived on the scene.

I'm wildly veering off-topic here, I know. I just wanted to say that if your conscience compelled you to leave, Susan, I'd certainly miss you!

By the way . . . I'm missing recovering ex-Pentecostal already. I DO hope he's not been banished . . . If I thought we weren't all good friends, I just don't think I could bear it . . . (picture me as Val Kilmer . . . with my six-gun handy . . . .)

Sigaliris - It's 7:15 here, and I have to go and get dinner done. You have focused my concerns about participation here. More on this tomorrow!

As much as I am dismayed at your swerving hard left politically, I am compelled to say that your comments about judgement above are one of the most amazingly clear description of how a Christian is required to make judgements, and yet not PASS JUDGEMENT on the souls of others.

I am banned from Wallis's blog because I am unable to stomach the judgements passed upon others there, and retain my composure. I am horribly offended by much of what is said there.

Yet, your comments above so amazingly delineat our obligations as Christians... the multiple facets of being wise, while not falling into the trap of pretending to know what we do not know... the mysteries of another's heart.

"But I do not think any kind of loving God can permit eternal hell, as described in many versions of the Christian faith."

Quit pissing off God, telling Him what He can and cannot do.

Marian: OTOH, calling oneself the chief of sinners is, well, grandiose, isn't it?

I used to think so, until I understood from reading Fr. Neuhaus what the term (which St. Paul used to describe himself) really meant. Did you read my explanation? It may not satisfy you, as you aren't Christian, but at least you should know that it's not a matter of personal grandiosity, but of theological precision operating within a Christian moral understanding.

Sorry, Rod, that really wasn't intended as personal criticism of you. I was thinking aloud, and I'm sorry that offended you. Certainly, you don't write every comment here--there are hundreds of people over whom you have very little control. I will refrain from further observations on that subject.

Okay, I believe I understand the sense Rod is using "chief of sinners" and I do not think he is engaging in false piety...

And also, even though the theological circumstances are completely different given the differences between the Jewish and Christian conceptions of Man, Man's sinful nature, and how that relates to God...

I am reminded of a joke...

Ahem...

One Yom Kippur, in a little schul in Gunnysack, New York, the rabbi stops in the middle of the musaf service, prostrates himself beside the bima, and cries out, “O God. Before You, I am nothing!”

The chazen is so moved by this demonstration of piety that he immediately follows suit, throwing himself to the floor beside the rabbi and crying, 'O God! Before you, I am nothing!”

In the ensuing silence, a shuffling is heard in the back row. Saul Blumenthal jumps from his seat, prostrates himself in the isle and cries, “O God! Before You, I am nothing!”

Seeing this, the chazen nudges the rabbi and whispers, “So look who thinks he’s nothing?”

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15 KJV)."

Um, if everyone takes this to heart, then there will be too many chiefs and not enough indians?

Making judgments about others is a necessary part of making life function. You have to decide whether your neighbor's 16 y/o is mature enough to babysit for your kids. Thats being judgmental, but in a necessary manner. We need to make judgments about the people we work with, who is trustworthy, who gets things done etc.

Judgments about people's moral activities can be achieved a number of ways. Atheists seem to use some sort of rationalist pragmatism or greatest good kind of theory. Hindus, Buddhists and other religions follow guidelines set by their religions. Christians follow the Bible, mostly. Herein lies part of the problem that Christians have when talking with each other. There is an awful lot missing in the Scriptures. How do we really know which sins are worse? How do we know which things not specifically mentioned in the Bible are really sins? Acts that are sin in one part of the Bible stop being sin in another (or prohibitions if you dont like sin). How do we fill in the gaps? This is where so much of the heat comes from. I rarely see people arguing that the acts which the Bible consistently calls sin (adultery e.g.) being argued about.

A lot of heat is also generated when judgment of ideas is mixed with judgment on the person. I think that all ideas are open to judgment and even attack. It does not phase me in the least to have my Christian beliefs attacked. If my beliefs cant stand up to assault then they werent worth having. As a Christian I will defend my beliefs and my hope is that in the defense they might prove strong enough that even one person might come to also know Christ. These are important beliefs, even core beliefs that provide meaning for everything we do. I think it inevitable that making judgments on ideas will lead to judging the people behind them, or at least those defending those beliefs. As a Christian I thik it important in these situations to remember that you should always be acting as a representative of Jesus, providing a witness if you will. Its ok to passionately and forcefully present/defend your position. You lose the ability to witness when you turn to personal attacks. That is wrong because its a sin is different than its wrong because its a sin you ignorant bastard.

Name calling (freak,slut) is extremely judgmental. It also has historical precedence if you read the Old Testament. You see it in the preaching of a Jeremiah Wright (anyone see Martin Marty's post?) and lots of Revivalist ministers. It can serve to shock people into confronting ideas they might otherwise look past. It can be hyperbolic with the intention of provoking a response. It may make us confront our true feelings. It may force you to take sides. As such, it is not a rhetorical or narrative device without merit. But, it does have downsides. It often reduces a person to just one word or concept. Life and people are seldom that simple. Applying labels without adequate evidence is especially appalling to some people. Adequate evidence seems to vary widely. For some, ten seconds on YouTube or a single quote from a speech is adequate. Other people want to know context . Clearly, there are some acts and words so egregious that they render context irrelevant, but the rest of the time we will generate heat in debating our judgments based on how we have judged that evidence.

Lastly, all bloggers come with a point of view. Rod is an op-ed writer presenting a conservative Christian POV. Its not realistic to expect him to make value neutral observations. That would be boring anyway. My thanks to all who participate in goodwill here who make it not boring.

Steve

Here's the passage everyone's fighting about:

Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

There's more to the thought than the first sentence. If you go on read the next few verses, it's clear that one is supposed to judge, BUT only after making sure that you yourself are on good grounds.

JPL, your example (March 26, 2008 10:20 PM) of Mohammad Atta not being culpable for his heinous act because he thought he was doing the right thing is a perfect illustration of why Pope B XVI keeps insisting that a person's faith should never be separated from reason.

First:
We Catholics believe that God instills in every heart the knowledge of right from wrong, i.e., that a person's reason GENERALLY tells him right from wrong, especially in black and white situations. Therefore, I believe Atta knew in his heart that the slaughter of 3,000 defenseless and innocent men, women and children, many of whom may have been on his side or neutral, contravened Allah's will, the Koran, common sense, decency, honor, the warrior's code, civilized thought and the teaching of most(?) Muslim scholars. Reason would not allow him to believe that Allah didn't give a fig for His own written word, etc., etc..

In short, Atta, because he had the use of his senses, seems culpable and thus seems to deserve God's just but harsh punishment. I. E., Because he was a fanatic and knew what Allah's punishment was for serious disobedience--eternal hell--and because Atta nevertheless chose to hope for Allah's mercy and still be a great hero to al Qaeda over what his reason told him to choose (strict obedience to Allah's word), the appropriateness of hell seems just.

The belief in the existence of hell--in Christ's numerous references to it-- is what keeps us/me in line.

Second:
(A) It's true that Christ told us that it's not up to us to judge a person's heart. What seems certain to us may be completely different in reality, which only God knows because He is reality. But, sure as there is a hell (He does not lie), Christ did leave it up to us to honestly judge (B) the objective right or wrong (morality) of all actions, and make/offer correction, as well as (C) the lawfulness of a person's actions, and administer a lawful earthly punishment. Many liberals who claim to be Christians pretend that (B) doesn't exist in Christianity.



sig, my dear ;-), I enjoyed your March 26, 9:08 PM comment. Seriously.

But it's pretty safe to say that when the other person says "ouch" you probably hit them too hard and should apologize.

In a different world, I would agree with that standard. Not the one that objectively exists now.

I noticed that there is such sort of people who see judgement almost in everything. In one of recent articles on pravmir were published stories of a man and a woman in which they discribed how they managed to live in chastity before marriage. In the preface it was said that in modern world chastity is laughed at these days, so the purpose of publication was to encourage those who are chosing that unfashinable lifestyle, in other words to say them you are not alone. The girl told about temptations, broken heart, life was not sweet but in the end she met a reliable husband. And still someone found it judgemental!(note that the paper is Orthodox) It seems some people just can't read a happy story from someones life in any other way than an attempt to boast and prove that others are much worse than them.

Religious exemptions for jury service:

A couple of cases have considered this question. US v. Hillyard (52 F. Supp. 612) affirmed a right to such exemptions under the free exercise clause. Ditto In re Jenison (375 U.S. 14).

This non-lawyer is unsure whether these cases are still good law in view of Employment Division v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) - i.e., the case that spawned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - but even if they aren't, not all judges may know that yet.

The only religious epiphany I can remember having was when god told me to stop pretending I cared about things I wasn't willing to actually do anything about.

At the time, I thought he was being snarky about my tendency not to do anything. I now see he was also being snarky about my tendency to keep myself in a state of helpless furor by making judgments of other people's behavior, when I wasn't willing to do what it took to have any effect on that behavior.

The only judgments god seems to want from me are judgments about what I should do - and he doesn't show much interest in those, either, unless I actually do it.

Pat

"... I have been given the saving grace of knowledge of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Jesus Christ. I know him personally, and I know what he requires of me."

That's wonderful, Rod.

By the way, that reminds me of something that I learned which always stuck with me, and made the Trinity something more profound (both in knowledge and experience). If you're interested I'll let you know about the author(s) from whom I first learned this perspective. It's interpretational, but I think it's accurate.

The God of Abraham = God the Father
Abraham is the "father of faith," and offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. He is the father of all Jews naturally, and all Christians spiritually.

The God of Isaac = Christ the Son
Isaac inherited all the riches of his father Abraham. He was offered up by his father, and received back in resurrection. His marriage to Rebekah typifies Christ married to the church.

The God of Jacob = The Holy Spirit
Jacob experienced a transformation from "Jacob" to "Israel." His life is comparable to what Christians experience as the transformational work of the Spirit, primarily through sufferings. We are being transformed to the image of Christ, "from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit."

Rod,

I don't care that you are judgmental. We all are. I think the kind of reaction you are getting stems almost entirely from the way you present your judgments.

You freely call people you do not know "freaks" and "sluts," and then expect a reasoned and passionate debate to follow. (To say nothing of all of your chest-thumping about deleting offending posts and demanding people be civil). When the combox conversation bypasses the argument and focuses on you and your lowering of the discourse, you essentially stomp your feet, take your ball and go home. Look, its easy to call people names on blogs. It's likely that you would never call someone a freak or slut to their face, because they'd likely unscrew your head from the rest of your body.

People are always going to tell you to stop being judgmental. Speaking for myself, I would appreciate it if you just stopped writing posts that make you sound like a jerk, like the bully on the corner who needs to get himself popped in the nose.

"Chief of sinners" as used by the apostle Paul is something particular to himself. Of course we can apply it to ourselves, but few of us have actually been guilty of directly and violently persecuting the Christian church, as Paul was.

It is comparable to what he says in 1 Cor. 15:9: "For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." The stoning of Stephen in the book of Acts, where Paul is first mentioned, probably haunted him his entire life. When you read Acts you realize that the early church was very afraid of Paul, even after his conversion. He recognizes himself as the one least deserving of God's mercy and grace, and yet he was chosen to be an apostle to the Gentiles as a demonstration of the love of God in Christ.

"I can't help wondering WHY it seems so important to people to assert their right to judge others, in the first place."

It's the nature of rational beings to make rational judgments; this is not obviated my the reality of human error.

Why is it for some that the only real sin is to notice the other sins?

What is the appropriate way to notice other people's sins? What is the constructive way to notice other people's sins? What is the Christian way to notice other people's sins?

Steve

You're absolutely right, meh. ; )

And since I don't know Rod personally, it would be very unlikely that I would be a major factor in any change that might take place in his life.

Stories, shared experience, and metaphors are interesting forms of human speech, however. They can sometimes enable the listener to enter into a different form of life from the one he's known, and see it from the inside. This works differently from a rational (or rationalized) presentation of judgment. Hearing a really great story that moves your heart can even be experienced as a form of love. People certainly fall in love with Jesus on the basis of stories told about him. I'm not sure exactly how it works, yet, so I like to experiment. My hearers, of course, are free to reject the experiment as a failure.

It seems to me, also, that by trying to treat everyone with respect (and being willing to apologize when I can see that I've failed) and by putting forth my best efforts to communicate (however misguided they may be) I'm probably showing the maximum amount of love that will fit in a combox. Such is my ambition, anyway. Again, the rest of you are free to judge me as a failure and reject my offerings with opprobrium. Or you could try to change me . . . .

It's been said here above, and in previous days, that what Rod continues to obtusely overlook or ignore is the RESULT of his name-calling. What are you trying to achieve?

If you believe it is morally wrong to try to change your sex, change it back, and conceive a baby to be raised with a same-sex partner, you are not persuasive to those who would be tempted to do that by calling them freaks. If you believe it is disrespectful of something (marriage? virginity? a church?) for brides to show too much skin, please present a convincing argument rather than shout SLUT! The offenders of your moral beliefs are not going to listen past the name calling.

Some commenter here pointed out the other day that the name calling is a way of dehumanizing others. Rod uses powerful language to stir up a reaction here. (He admitted that in the Slut post.) Once those who are different are dehumanized, it's a short step to beating them up or killing them. Certainly Rod wouldn't take such actions, but propagandists have always known that language can drive others to do horrible things. It begins by defining The Other as not-us.

Rod has been unable to address this issue: judgment of others' actions/choices/behavior is fine, human, and natural; but what is the point in calling them freaks and sluts? That won't change their behavior, or bring others around to your point of view. It's just to shock and get a reaction.

(And thank you Bugg, for your judgment of the misspelling of judgment. We're in America--write American, none of those British "variants.")

sig wrote: "At least there's one other person with me in my madness. ; )"

It's nice to have your company. Pull up a chair in front of the fire; I have some good spiced wine.

Pat

For me, it keeps coming back to the old "Hate the sin, love the sinner" line of reasoning. Does the way we interact with a person reflect love and compassion, REGARDLESS of their sin? As long as you're coming from that place, you're on solid ground. Failing to, say, call an alcoholic on their alcoholism is neither loving or compassionate. Calling them miserable drunks is also a violation of this standard. BUt telling them that while you love them, they're alcoholics who will kill themselves if they don't stop is in line with loving kindness.

Thus while I really do have a complete understanding of why Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, I think it is profoundly unchristian to call them fags, queer, dykes, homos, "Those people responsible for 9/11" and "a threat greater than Al Qaeda". In fact, I believe it is a downright satanic act. It fails to respect them as human beings held in just as much esteem by our Creator and Redeemer as I am. (I'm really not trying to harp on the gay issue, here: it's just the clearest case. I feel the same way about people who call pro-life people "Anti-choicers" as if their entire existence were defined by a moral stance, or "pro=aborts" in the case of right wing blogs. People are not their labels.)

"Calling them miserable drunks is also a violation of this standard."

I think AA would beg to differ on this point.

"People are not their labels."

I would say that people or more than their labels.

Well, sure, I do that for MYSELF. I think about these issues, and have to make my best reasoned "guess" at the truth of them. Of course, I'm working with limited evidence, and I have to keep in mind that I could be completely wrong.

So, I might decide to attend or not attend a church based on those judgments. I might approve or disapprove of certain behavior. I might choose one line of work or another.

But I'm not going to be overly militant about it. I might recommend certain courses of actions to others, but if they beg to differ, I'll respect that right, and try to avoid name-calling and vilification. I won't work to make people lose their jobs, their freedoms, or their dignity based solely on my potentially flawed ideas.

I am willing to make those judgments when their actions materially inhibit my own reasonable freedoms. Hence, a criminal justice system.

But Rod obviously goes well beyond that. As an example, he would outlaw transgender surgery, even if self-financed, because he thinks it's morally wrong. His definition of what acts "affect" him is so broad that he will take away the rights of others to live their lives, and feel their feelings, to make them accord with his own religious-derived determination of right. Nor is that decision based on any particularly sound, evidentiary reasoning. It ignores the studied, educated advice of the AMA, the APA, and numerous experts who attest to the validity of transgender issues. It ignores the gaps in our own gender understanding, which become evident when we discover that over 30 congenital issues create various forms of transgenderism that is physically measurable.

So I can make some ultimate judgments for myself, although I should do so cautiously, with a deep sense of humility at my own imperfect understanding. But once I begin using those decisions to inflict my will on others, I think I'm in a dangerous place.

JPL: "So I can make some ultimate judgments for myself, although I should do so cautiously, with a deep sense of humility at my own imperfect understanding. But once I begin using those decisions to inflict my will on others, I think I'm in a dangerous place."

Without wanting to be drawn in to the comparison of your and Rod's perspectives, I did want to note how astute this paragraph is. It certainly conforms with my own understanding of the ideal - an ideal we all fall short of - Christian stance towards belief. If the judgments we make for ourselves are based on our own best attempts to discern truth and goodness, then we are allowing for God's will to be done in our lives. The only way to inspire others to work towards truth in their own lives is by example. There are many stories in the patristic Christian literature of early pagans who looked at the Christians and said, "I want to live like you live." I don't believe the Gospels leave us any alternate stance towards the greater population that is not part of the Church.

Bless,
Doug

When I get really "exercised" about something, I find I may be using that as a way to avoid other feelings, such as depression. I agree that it is necessary and important to judge, to discriminate between good and bad, or good and evil.

But sometimes my anger towards someone like Jeremiah Wright helps me to avoid, or sublimate, anger that I have towards someone a lot closer to me. (On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.)

That doesn't mean I shouldn't judge the actions or words of someone like Wright -- it does mean I should attempt to become more conscious of the degree to which I distance myself from the relationships that are having the greatest effect on my life by getting emotionally involved in the things that are less personally relevant to me.

I've been following this thread with interest, and I think that there are some points of conflict that are worth discussing.

In the homeschooling thread below this one, some people have said that they either don't believe homeschooling is good for society, or that they're not sure it always is. For the most part the homeschoolers and homeschool-defenders have come back and given reasons why they believe homeschooling is good for at least some families and why it is unlikely to have any of the feared negative impacts on society.

What has mostly been absent from the discussion has been any foot stamping and shrieking along these lines: "How dare you judge me for homeschooling!! You hate me!! You think you're better than me!! You anti-homeschoolers are all a bunch of judgmental hypocrites!! How dare you try to make me feel bad about my lifestyle choices!!" etc. ad infinitum et ad nauseam.

Now, I'm not saying that homeschoolers never do this, or aren't ever prone to take criticism of homeschooling personally. We're no less subject to this temptation than anyone--but at least for myself, I recognize it as a temptation, and an unhelpful one. By attacking and demonizing those who oppose homeschooling all I'm doing is shutting down the debate, and doing so in a passive-aggressive way that will ultimately have two effects: one, to make people afraid to voice any real concerns they might have about homeschooling, and two, to reinforce those concerns on the grounds that I won't even agree to address them.

I think that what provokes that response is the appearance (or reality) of name-calling, which is absent in the homeschooling thread. Still, while the "slut" incident may have qualified as name-calling, I don't think the use of "freak" accompanied as it was by a discussion of O'Connor's writing was intended to be taken as such. What is unfortunately true is that these instance tend to be seized upon as "proof" that Rod is judgmental and that no dialog is therefore possible, which is a shame considering that it's a lot more important, to me, to consider why so many young women feel that they have to dress revealingly and tie that to self worth, for instance, or to debate the unintended consequences of abandoning any notion of objective truth in the case of the mother/father/mother person, than it is to get all hung up like a group of shocked Victorians on the strong language that has been employed.

In the end, I think that we have to recognize that the purpose of having any of these discussions at all, at least on this particular forum, is to examine the societal effects of various contemporary events. Most of us think, for instance, that homeschooling and Chipotle's use of local foods are generally good things (though some may have thoughtful reservations about either); most of us are going to shake our heads to some degree over the decline in the quality of Chilean salmon and the effects of factory farming. But the most vibrant and interesting discussions occur when we don't agree, when, for instance, I explain why I don't allow Bratz dolls in my house and Watsy explains why she does. We may not reach a point of agreement, but I'm going to learn more about how she thinks, and she's going to learn more about how I do, and in general the spirit of respectful discourse shows how it is possible to disagree even vehemently without needing to reject the other person as a person.

Sometimes the subject of disagreement is going to be more personal. As R-eP and I discussed recently, there's not going to be any common ground between his claim that it's possible to be truly Christian while rejecting the notion that homosexual acts are immoral, and my view that it's not really possible to do this. He knows that I pray for him, though, and I know that he prays for me, so ultimately the spiritual effects of our conversation may transcend what is possible on the merely rational level.

And that, I think, is where the difference between discerning and defending what you believe to be true, and judging other people, lies. No one is beyond God's mercy--no one. But that doesn't permit those who seek to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this life to pretend that what He said, which Church He founded, and what that Church teaches is irrelevant or unimportant.

Are Christians sometimes going to err, in their zeal to defend the truth? Are we sometimes going to cross lines or hurt feelings, intentionally or otherwise? Yes, because we're human, and we're still working out our salvation in fear and trembling. But life would be pretty dull altogether if our occasional lapses into name-calling or strong language were to make other people wash their hands of us, just as it would be pretty dull if we did the same.

And this site would quickly become uninteresting if we didn't believe we could come here to discuss our true thoughts and feelings about the societal impact of the events of the day--which, however much they may involve real people and situations instead of abstractions, still have the possibility for a much greater effect than the mere headline in the newspaper. To put it another way, I doubt very much that we would sit here philosophically and wonder whether a woman living as a man might decide temporarily to be a woman again in order to have a baby; but when such a story gets reported in the news, it provides the opportunity for reflection.

I liked your post, Erin.

I've been called upon to forgive and forgive, seventy times seven in a day if need be. I've been called upon to show mercy.

Not if there's no God you haven't.

"This fits exactly with my point that God doesn't really send anyone to Hell, rather they choose it over the alternative. Only, you've expressed far batter than I."

Nah, you can't get off that easy. To expect me to watch God act in ways completely opposite of what he himself has told me is moral is to put me in an impossible position. I'm supposed to be "perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect". Not, "do what you're told, and God can do whatever he feels like."

Also, putting me in hell due to open rebellion is one thing. But there is plenty of theology to suggest if I merely select the wrong religious faith, and adhere to its tenets, I'll end up in hell. Even if I was raised with those ideas, lived in a culture full of those ideas, and was explicit taught that the Catholic ideas were completely false and wrong.

Beyond which, I'm working with very limited information. I'm not Satan, able to actually SEE and KNOW God in a direct manner with ease. I'm working from people's interpretations of 2,000 year old stories...people who are hardly angelically wise or powerful...people who might not even be as bright as myself.

And I'm in a religious marketplace full of competing voices, many of whom are just as seemingly holy, just as compassionate, just as wise, and just as ancient as the Catholic voice.

If I put my own child into such a circumstance, with such limited knowledge, I could hardly blame him if he failed to get the answer exactly right. At a bare minimum, I'd have to place all the facts before him in some incontrovertible way, at some time, and then let him make a choice. That does not happen during our lives, in any way that I can see.

I just don't accept these ethno or religio-centric views of God. I don't believe that millions of conscientious Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and assorted Pagans and Scientologists are all going to roast forever for making a poor choice based on inadequate information, cultural conditioning, and external circumstances. And any God that would treat them so certainly doesn't rate my allegiance. Fortunately, I don't believe that's the case. It's just one of the errors that crop up in ethnocentric interpretations of monotheistic religion.

And if I'm wrong, well, I'm giving it my best shot. I've read everything I can find, I discuss, I think, I pray, and I discuss. If God truly demands more from me than my best thinking and effort, he's nowhere near the Abba that Christ described.

"Nah, you can't get off that easy. To expect me to watch God act in ways completely opposite of what he himself has told me is moral is to put me in an impossible position."

JJPL, I don't expect you to do anything, lest of all watch God act immorally. Not sure where that is coming from.

The existance of Hell is simply and ultimately separation from God.

If there is a God...
and if we have free will...
we have to be able to reject God...
and to reject is to separate from...
and this is Hell.

Again, in cases of damnation, I hold that it ultimately is not God at all that sends people to Hell; rather they choose it. Further, Hell is essentially not much more than separation from God. You said yourself you would choose it, so what is it that I'm supposed to get off from easily? Besides, you're the one who said that if there was a Hell it would make you so mad you would jump right in.

That's neither my fault nor my problem, but I do hope you will reconsider. I suspect you will when the time comes.

I don't know where you get all this "be perfect" stuff, but it ain't from me. None of us will ever measure up to that standard. At least not in this life on this Earth. The way of the Cross perfects us (and in way I guess death does too), as does Purgatory.

But trust me, the choices are not limited to "Perfection Now" and "Hell Forever". You are right to reject them, but wrong if you think that's what Christianity is.

Max, "be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" is a direct quote from Jesus, right from the Bible. Matthew, I believe, but certainly one of the gospels.

I certainly won't choose to be separated from God, unless being joined with God means participating in cruel and immoral acts. So, assuming God isn't doing that, I guess I'm good to go.

If God sends Buddhists to hell simply for being Buddhists, that would be immoral, and hence, see the above.

Erin, thanks for your note. I'm familiar with the Church's Vatican II position on those outside the faith, grace operating through channels outside the Church, etc. Actually, the whole "Christian or Hell" thing is more fundamentalist Protestant thinking nowadays, rather than Catholic. Although Benedict doesn't seem too in love with those ideas.

Problem is, check the Catechism from say 1600. It was Catholic or hell. So, has the Church therefore become more enlightened? Their new position is correct, and the old one wrong? So then back then not being Catholic DIDN'T mean hell. But they said it did.

If they were wrong then, they could be just as wrong now. About this, and other things. Hence, not exactly a secure track record that informs me that I can trust their current judgments. Two hundred years from now, who knows what that Catechism will say.

Like George Carlin, I wonder if there's some guy in hell now for eating a sausage on Friday in 1605, pissed that today he could have a SausageFest on Friday and it would be fine.

(And anyone who turns SausageFest into some inappropriate Catholic/Gay Priest reference will definitely burn in hell.)

I get that Erin, but you understand that is only the Catholic viewpoint. There are many, many Christian denominations that would claim that only be accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, turning your life over to him, etc., can you be saved. Muslims, Hindus, etc. are all destined for hell by those standards.

Also, I don't really buy into that idea of ecclesiastical authority to decide on what is sin or not, such as the meat on Friday issue. Neither the Church as a whole, nor Popes specifically, have proven sufficiently incorruptable for me to buy into that.

But I do appreciate the ideas, and your patience in covering them for me. You're a model as to how conversation here can go.

My sincerest thanks for your time and concern for my education and welfare.

JPL said, "...then I must stand in rebellion against God, and will therefore take the punishment that his omnipotence allows him to inflict. But he'll never have my love or obedience."

That's easy to say now, in front of your computer. But I think in eternity you will eventually realize you made a foolish mistake. It's easy to be strong with such reasonings right now. This is, after all, the age of grace. Some day that age shall end, and there will be a judgment. I don't know, but it may be that the very words you have written on this blog will be spoken back to you, along with the words, "So be it." Again, whatever arrogance and presumptions you have in this life and in this world won't remain. I don't think you will be patting yourself on the back for your defiance.

And you're right, if you are in hell in eternity, God will never have your love or obedience. He won't need them, and your eternal destiny will indeed be a testimony that God does not have your love or obedience. In that day, it will be too late to love or obey God, if you haven't chosen to already. I don't think that God will spend any time thinking about you after the judgment is over, wishing that you loved and obeyed Him. He will enjoy eternity with those who already do.

Pat, your question is patently absurd and ridiculous on its face. If God were evil, which is impossible, we would be wrong.

But you are not His son, you are His enemy. You've declared it so.

You are the one who is behaving in a threatening way towards God, and that to me is not wise. That's all.

Treebeard, I have no doubts in my faith that whatever the "true form" of the afterlife I encounter, I will not be judged on my compliance with one holy text or another. The Egyptians had an interesting concept: measurement of the soul vs. a feather on a celestial scales. They saw the balance of one's entire life as the important focus.

Since my personal faith includes a belief in reincarnation, I'll just offer you the blessings of Gaia and wish for you good health and good times. :-)

My time is limited, so I will only say this. My response to JPL was in the context of his own comments on hell and divine judgment. I don't think a person should be flippant about saying, "If God is such-and-such, then I will go to hell with my head held high and say nyah nyah" (I'm paraphrasing).

But I do not think the Christian life should be defined by fear of (or anticipation of) the next life. That is, while I believe hell is very real, and God will judge us all, I don't think that is the primary message of the gospel.

I would rather someone believe in Christ not because of a threat (I don't consider it a threat, I consider it a reality), but because of what is attractive about Him. He is the Word become flesh, and He is very beautiful and wonderful to behold, in this age as well as the next. The reasons to be a Christian are primarily positive ones, not negative. To be free from bondage of all kinds, to be healed from all sorts of inward sicknesses, to be restored to a proper relationship with God, to be forgiven and know it, that is why people should become Christians. It is not because of fear, but as a response to love.

But if someone should have the attitude, "I shall never love such a God," then God, in His wisdom which allowed free will, in His sovereignty which does not coerce, will let the person reap the fruits of what he has sown.

At the judgment day, I sincerely don't think there will be a lot of people standing up to God in defiance, or nitpicking Him on His choices. God is God, and when we see Him as He is, we'll just be grateful for the mercy that He shows. Someone like JPL will learn (but I prefer he learn it now and not then) that the proper attitude towards God, even with all the ways we don't understand Him, is lowliness and humility.

To be free from bondage of all kinds, to be healed from all sorts of inward sicknesses, to be restored to a proper relationship with God, to be forgiven and know it, that is why people should become Christians. It is not because of fear, but as a response to love.

I could wholeheartedly approve this way of thinking about Christianity, treebeard, and I respect your devotion to it. I can't help but feel, though, that any time the possibility of extreme torture is introduced into a relationship, it's bound to poison the whole thing. I know I could never really love a human being who held the idea of setting me on fire constantly in reserve, even as a remote possibility. You say god only lets people reap what they have sown. But a kind earthly parent will only let a child reap those fruits to a certain extent. You might let a child go out without a sweater to experience being cold. But you'd never let him play in the middle of the street till he was hit by a truck, and then shrug it off by saying that it was his own choice to be squashed like a bug. Hell is not a learning experience, so it can't be justified in those terms. If we have been mistaken in our attitude, why would a kind, all-loving, all-merciful god not educate us, rather than losing all patience and stuffing us into the incinerator?

Sigaliris, thank you for your thoughtful response. (This will be my last post as I have work to do.)

"If we have been mistaken in our attitude, why would a kind, all-loving, all-merciful god not educate us, rather than losing all patience and stuffing us into the incinerator?"

Because God is also 100% righteous, and 100% holy, and cannot receive anyone into His presence who does not come up to His standard. That is why Christ died on the cross, so that His righteousness and holiness could become ours. God is indeed all-loving and all-merciful, and that is expressed in the death of His Son.

Hell exists as a place of judgment for sin. God is God, and He is not obligated to save anyone from hell. In His love and mercy, He has provided a way. People who reject it are choosing their destiny. That's not a mere threat. God is going to judge the world. Christ Himself said this. And those who have believed in Christ (like those Israelites who put the blood of the passover lamb on their doorposts) will not receive the same judgment, solely because of His death and resurrection.

But I have known many Christians over the years, and not one came to Christ specifically because of a fear of hell. There are plenty of other reasons to believe into Him. But to refuse to believe into Him because you think you see things more clearly than He does, to reject the gospel because God couldn't possibly create a hell, is to me a very peculiar form of foolishness and arrogance.

But He will honor our choices. He is that great a God.

Sig & JPL,

I think C.S. Lewis answered your questions as well as anyone could in "The Problem of Pain".

You should read it if you haven't already.

How much education do I need, Cleveland? As much as it takes. I would expect a God of infinite power and love to have infinite patience and to take infinite pains. Here in this life, a loving mother will spend as much time and patience as it takes to teach her child to tie his shoes. There will never come a point at which she smacks him upside the head and shouts, “That’s it! You’ve had your chance! I give up on you, you stupid little brat!” Would we not think her a very harsh and cruel mother, unnatural even, for behaving like that?

A loving wife will have as much patience as it takes for the faults and flaws of her husband. Even if he never changes, over a whole lifetime, she will still bear with him kindly and cherish the hope that someday he will live up to the best that is in him. Certainly, many people today would excuse her for giving up on him, but you wouldn’t, would you? Would you not feel that after all, there must have been something lacking in her love if she could finally turn her back on its imperfect object?

“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Isn’t that how it goes? How could God fail to live up to his own words? How could a God who has infinite time and power available give up on us? Why would he make such frail creatures eternal, then give us only one tiny test window, and if while it lasted, we failed to meet expectations, throw us away forever--and not just to destruction, but to eternal punishment? Is this not a pettiness and petulance unworthy of a being who is supposedly infinitely great? You have not yet convinced me that an eternal hell can exist without diminishing God.

It would be kinder in you--a finite being, I realize--not to be so free with the term “BS.” Doesn’t “BS” imply insincerity on my part? I assure you that while I may be wrong, I am always most sincerely so. ; )

Sig, I think you have identified one of MacDonald's main points. It's too long to quote here, but you will find it fleshed out in his sermon 'Justice' in the third volume of his 'Unspoken sermons', which is available from http://www.johannesen.com/SermonsSeriesIII.htm.

MacDonald had no interest in any orthodox doctrine, so far as I can tell. He spoke very clearly about it:

"Our business is not to think correctly, but to live truly; then first will there be a possibility of our thinking correctly. One chief cause of the amount of unbelief in the world is, that those who have seen something of the glory of Christ, set themselves to theorize concerning him rather than to obey him."

Pat

Amen, Pat! I like that very much. I believe if the same amount of energy and faith had been put into living out the good news brought by Jesus as has been put into defining and distinguishing doctrines . . . well, again, we'd be having a very different discussion. : )

"I would expect a God of infinite power and love to have infinite patience and to take infinite pains [before sending us to an eternal hell]." sig

His patience is immeasurably, inconceivably great. Even though we (sinful creatures) disobey and mock Him (our crucified Creator), His patience endures--until we have no life (spiritual and earthly) left in us.

Infinite pains? How many times must He be crucified for you?

"Here in this life, a loving mother will spend as much time and patience as it takes to teach her child to tie his shoes. There will never come a point at which she smacks him upside the head and shouts, 'That’s it! You've had your chance!'" sig

You would expect her stop trying after the child dies, because then it doesn't matter. It's the same with God and us. If we do not live as He commands while we have life to do it, what good is it to want to live according to His will when we no longer have a life to do it with? Since we no longer have a will or a life to live as He commands, to what would He apply His infinite patience?

How many times do you think His infinite patience should bring us back to life until we lived as He commands? Is that what you mean by infinite patience? Some believe in something close to that; very convenient, huh?

Sorry, sig, except for my good friend Franklin, we only live once.

sig, you probably know this stuff better than I do, but some others may not be familiar with the sources of the Catholic concept of an eternal hell. Here are some:

Matthew 25:46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

2Pet.2:4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell...

Mark.9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Me: "That's not enough education for us? Please cut the BS--you know that other factors mentioned in this thread are at play. Ignorance is not one of them."

You: "Doesn't “BS” imply insincerity on my part?"

Not exactly. It means I know your intelligence pales before no one on this board and that you know all the eternal damnation arguments far better even than 90% of most practicing Catholics, so why would you ask something like this: "If we have been mistaken in our attitude, why would a kind, all-loving, all-merciful god not educate us, rather than losing all patience and stuffing us into the incinerator?"?

And it means that I know that you know that one's mistaken attitude is pre-dispositive of the question of whether one merits eternal hell from a merciful, just and loving God, yet you chose to condition the question with it.

It's not insincerity; it's more like I believe you're playing cat and mouse. Not that there's anything wrong with that.