Damien Karras wrote:You seem to be getting angry, and I'm going to bed now, but first let's get things in order.

Oh please - let's. Maybe if I keep using the contrasting words "physical" and "spiritual" eventually their meanings will penetrate your skull, to the rejoicing of all.

However, cuddly Pope Benny believes in the real, burny, ouchy hot one with blisters and so on

No, he believes in a spiritual one which he also believes is entirely real. Real, but not physical. Spiritual, but entirely real. Spiritual stuff is real to these people, just different to physical reality. This honestly isn't difficult to grasp even if we think it's all nonsense. "Real" does not = "Physical". Got it?

The Australian newspaper quotes Pope Benny thus:
Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to "admit blame and promise to sin no more", they risked "eternal damnation - the inferno".

Yes. And? I can't see the word "physical" in there.

As for your closing remark - "bullshit", lest we forget - I don't recall you sitting next to me - or being in the same class or indeed school - at all during 14 years of Catholic education.

Well, you can keep insisting that you were taught heresy for 14 years in your school, but I know enough about Catholic education to know it's far more likely that either you weren't paying attention or your memory is faulty. Because it would have been heresy to teach that the Pope was infallible in any context other than an ex cathedra statement. I clearly recall my Catholic teachers mocking those who thought infallibility meant that the Pope was always right and drumming the actual meaning in to us. So you can keep insisting that you were taught heresy, but I find it rather more likely that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Your inability to see the difference between saying "Hell is real" and "Hell is a physical place" reinforces that impression.

TimONeill wrote:

CookieJon wrote:Also, this is amusing...

TimONeill wrote:Of course they don't believe it's a fucking PHYSICAL place where people physically burn in actual, physical fire.

Why "of course"?

Because anyone with the faintest understanding of what they believe knows that they believe Hell is a spiritual state and not a physical place. Though when I wrote "of course" I assumed this was widely understood. It seems from this thread that this was a highly optimistic assumption.

So, just to clarify (I'm a bit thick, you see)... All the other things I mentioned like transubstantiation, dead nuns making house calls, flying virgins and zombie children you believe with no problem, but "of course" nobody in their right mind would believe hell could possibly be hot... is that right? Could you please confirm this for me?

Also, it may interest you to know that according to an online poll at beliefnet, 39% of the 1500 Catholics who responded actually do believe that Hell is a physical place. Are you aware that such a large proportion of your Catholic chums don't have (in your own words) the "faintest understanding of what they believe"?

And (while we've got you here) do you believe in Limbo, or have you been ordered not to believe in that one now? It's just so confusing trying to keep up with the way the Universe works when it changes so often!

TimONeill wrote:Because it would have been heresy to teach that the Pope was infallible in any context other than an ex cathedra statement.

Oh, so he could be mistaken about Hell, since that teaching wasn't made ex cathedra... Is that so?

So really you've got no way to know whether it's physical or not, since the Pope could easily be in error, and Matthew, when referring to the "gates of Hell" could actually be talking about a physical pair of gates.

Interesting how little you can actually rely on from Catholic teachings, isn't it?

CookieJon wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

CookieJon wrote:Also, this is amusing...

TimONeill wrote:Of course they don't believe it's a fucking PHYSICAL place where people physically burn in actual, physical fire.

Why "of course"?

Because anyone with the faintest understanding of what they believe knows that they believe Hell is a spiritual state and not a physical place. Though when I wrote "of course" I assumed this was widely understood. It seems from this thread that this was a highly optimistic assumption.

So, just to clarify (I'm a bit thick, you see)...

No comment.

All the other things I mentioned like transubstantiation, dead nuns making house calls, flying virgins and zombie children you believe with no problem,

Fuck me - I BELIEVE these things? What the fuck?!! What bit of "I'M AN ATHEIST" can't you grasp?

I'm simply trying to explain to you what THEY believe. I'm not a fucking Catholic.

Also, it may interest you to know that according to an online poll at beliefnet, 39% of the 1500 Catholics who responded actually do believe that Hell is a physical place.

Got a link for that? And if 39% of the surveyed Catholics don't have a clue about their own faith that wouldn't surprise me greatly. But the idea that the Pope doesn't have a clue about his own faith is ridiculous.

... your Catholic chums ...

Please, you're making my stomach muscles hurt from laughing so much.

And (while we've got you here) do you believe in Limbo ...?

Please stop, I'm now gasping for breath. Fuck - that was funny.

I'm beginning to think we need to run remedial reading comprehension classes on this board. Or maybe just on this thread.

To depart slightly from the present theme. I have a question.

What does a pope have to do in order to become infallible?
Does he have to dress up in a different fancy dress and stand at the alter or does he just put on an 'Infallible Hat' when making a statement, which then becomes 'infallible'.

I suppose the same question could be applied to 'ex-cathedra'.

I have never been indoctrinated into any religion, so all this seems just like a load of mumbo-jumbo.

(I could Google it, but knowing me, I'll get distracted.)

Alan B wrote:To depart slightly from the present theme. I have a question.

What does a pope have to do in order to become infallible?

Get elected. But they believe a statement he makes is only infallible if it's made ex cathedra

Does he have to dress up in a different fancy dress and stand at the alter or does he just put on an 'Infallible Hat' when making a statement, which then becomes 'infallible'.

No, he has to make it clear he's speaking ex cathedra. They don't believe he's infallible if he looks out the window and says "It's going to be a nice day today."

I suppose the same question could be applied to 'ex-cathedra'.

I believe I posted the things that tend to indicate an ex cathedra pronouncement earlier in this weird, confused and generally remedial thread:

"For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church."

I have never been indoctrinated into any religion, so all this seems just like a load of mumbo-jumbo.

Well, of course it's all mumbo-jumbo. But if people are going to mock their mumbo-jumbo it would help if they were mocking what Catholics actually believed. Mocking them because the Pope said Hell is a physical place when he said nothing of the sort is plain stupid. Almost as stupid as leaping to the conclusion that anyone who points this out must therefore be a Catholic - especially when his first post on the thread begins with the words "Well, I'm not a Catholic, but anyway ..." You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that this means the poster in question ... well, isn't a Catholic.



Sometimes I despair of the "rationalists" on threads like this. Apparently we're the smart people, but sometimes you really wouldn't know it ...

TimONeill wrote:What bit of "I'M AN ATHEIST" can't you grasp?

Oh well in that case...! I'm sorry, but my psychic powers aren't up to par this afternoon... where did you say you were an Atheist? The only thing I remember reading was about your Catholic education and apologetics. Forgive me if I formed the wrong impression!

EDIT: Nevermind.. line 1 of your first post! D'oh!

Thanks, Tim.
So, in effect all the pope has to say, basically is, "I decree, blah, blah, blah..." and all around genuflect like mad muttering, 'O Yea! O Yea! The pope has spoken. He is infallible!' What a load of rubbish.

I think it's a reasonably straightforward leap for many Catholics, when told by this Pope that there is "an inferno" called Hell that "really exists and is eternal", to imagine it as a real place with fire. If he's trying to say it should be understood "symbolically rather than physically", he's not doing a very good job of it is he?

I don't give a crap what the Pope actually believes. It's what he's telling his millions of followers to believe that's the problem.

All the above are Pope B. quotes from here. Again.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 1113237028

TimONeill wrote:

I'm simply trying to explain to you what THEY believe.

You're failing. You're assuming that "they", the vast majority of Catholics around the world, are reading through the nuances of the Pope's pronouncements on Hell and coming to the conclusion that it's a symbol or a spiritual state or some other bollocks. To many people, the words REAL and INFERNO and ETERNAL sound a touch more scary than that.

If you have the patience, you can search this.

Alan B wrote:Thanks, Tim.
So, in effect all the pope has to say, basically is, "I decree, blah, blah, blah..." and all around genuflect like mad muttering, 'O Yea! O Yea! The pope has spoken. He is infallible!'

Yup.

What a load of rubbish.

No argument there. It's one of the silliest beliefs in the world.

Interestingly, it wasn't made official Catholic doctrine unitl 1870 despite having been around as a concept for centuries. There were plenty of Popes before then who could see that a Pope infallibly declaring himself infallible was a creaky concept. Since then it's actually been used very rarely. There are only about seven papal statements that have been declared infallible and only one since 1854 (the declaration of the bodily assumption of Mary in 1950).

Damien Karras wrote:I think it's a reasonably straightforward leap for many Catholics, when told by this Pope that there is "an inferno" called Hell that "really exists and is eternal", to imagine it as a real place with fire.

There may well be many Catholics who are dumb enough to confuse the word "real" with the word "physical". That's not the point. The point is that the Pope said "real" and he didn't say "physical". So there was no contradiction between the two statements you quoted.

It would be nice if you grasped this before one of us dies of old age.

I don't give a crap what the Pope actually believes.

Your orginal post was about what the Pope actually believes. So you're now madly back-pedalling away from the awkward fact that your original post was based wholly on your misunderstanding that "real" does not mean "physical".

You might want to give up about now.

TimONeill wrote:

Damien Karras wrote:I think it's a reasonably straightforward leap for many Catholics, when told by this Pope that there is "an inferno" called Hell that "really exists and is eternal", to imagine it as a real place with fire.

There may well be many Catholics who are dumb enough to confuse the word "real" with the word "physical".

....<snip blah blah blah wilful missing of the point again>....

TimONeill wrote:Your orginal post was about what the Pope actually believes. So you're now madly back-pedalling away from the awkward fact that your original post was based wholly on your misunderstanding that "real" does not mean "physical".

You might want to give up about now.

Wrong. My original post was about what the Pope says, not what he believes. They may or may not be two different things - that's irrelevant. It's what he says that practising Catholics have to deal with. Real, eternal and inferno are the words that spring to mind.

Damien Karras wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

Damien Karras wrote:I think it's a reasonably straightforward leap for many Catholics, when told by this Pope that there is "an inferno" called Hell that "really exists and is eternal", to imagine it as a real place with fire.

There may well be many Catholics who are dumb enough to confuse the word "real" with the word "physical".

....<snip blah blah blah wilful missing of the point again>....

The "point" was that you thought two statements by two Popes contradicted each other. They didn't. That's why you're trying to change the subject.

Wrong. My original post was about what the Pope says, not what he believes.

It was about both, actually. But that doesn't matter - the fact remains that the two statements by those two Popes didn't contradict each other. The only problem was your lack of reading comprehension skills. Though given that you were educated by the Catholic system, perhaps we can blame the horrible old Catholic Church for that as well. Bastards!

It's what he says that practising Catholics have to deal with. Real, eternal and inferno are the words that spring to mind.

Whereas "physical" doesn't. Which means your imaginary contradiction vanishes in a puff of literacy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_UI-EBGnqk[/youtube]

Fix'ed the link
Preeettty sure people believe hell is a physical place.
And if people in their own religion can't agree on one thing such as the state of hell imagine how the rest of us feel.


Edit: And don't say "they never said hell was a place" .... No they don't but a young child, confused or conflicted person, or a strong believer (such as the people holding the....show?) would be convinced that this place is real, everything that happens in the act comes from the bible, to them a real, documented, and Factual text.

TimONeill wrote:

Damien Karras wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

Damien Karras wrote:I think it's a reasonably straightforward leap for many Catholics, when told by this Pope that there is "an inferno" called Hell that "really exists and is eternal", to imagine it as a real place with fire.

There may well be many Catholics who are dumb enough to confuse the word "real" with the word "physical".

....<snip blah blah blah wilful missing of the point again>....

The "point" was that you thought two statements by two Popes contradicted each other. They didn't. That's why you're trying to change the subject.

Wrong. My original post was about what the Pope says, not what he believes.

It was about both, actually. But that doesn't matter - the fact remains that the two statements by those two Popes didn't contradict each other. The only problem was your lack of reading comprehension skills. Though given that you were educated by the Catholic system, perhaps we can blame the horrible old Catholic Church for that as well. Bastards!

It's what he says that practising Catholics have to deal with. Real, eternal and inferno are the words that spring to mind.

Whereas "physical" doesn't. Which means your imaginary contradiction vanishes in a puff of literacy.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to the class what form a real, eternal inferno that is "non-physical" takes?
And yes, there is a contradiction between a real, eternal inferno - Pope B; and the Hell of JP2 - "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God". If I believed in any of this claptrap, I know which one I'd prefer. Unfortunately the inferno version is the current one.

"During his weekly address to the general audience of 8,500 people at the Vatican on July 28, 1999, Pope John Paul II rejected the reality of a physical, literal hell as a place of eternal fire and torment."
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Cults/poprejectshell.html

"HELL is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.
Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to "admit blame and promise to sin no more", they risked "eternal damnation - the inferno"."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 1113237028

Still can't see a contradiction?

I take your somewhat abrasively-made point about "infallibilty". Perhaps the first sentence of my OP should have read "The Pope is infallible when he says he is."

Damien Karras wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to explain to the class what form a real, eternal inferno that is "non-physical" takes?

A “spiritual” form apparently. Much the same way they believe God is “real” but isn’t physical. I can’t make this stuff make sense I can only explain that they believe in forms of reality that aren’t physical

And yes, there is a contradiction between a real, eternal inferno - Pope B; and the Hell of JP2 - "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God"

Nope - they are the same thing.

Still can't see a contradiction?

There is no contradiction at all. Both believe Hell is real. Neither believe Hell is physical. One talks about it in more metaphysical terms than the other, that’s all. They are talking about the same thing.

How many more times do we have to go over this before you understand?

I take your somewhat abrasively-made point about "infallibilty". Perhaps the first sentence of my OP should have read "The Pope is infallible when he says he is."

Yes. We’re sceptics and rationalists – we’re meant to try to be accurate and to check our information.

Unfortunately, many people (and this includes religionist teachers, who should know better), assume the word 'real' to be synonymous with 'physical', and use it in that sense. Many people do not have the critical thinking skills to differentiate between the two concepts and the popes know this which is why they do not clarify that Hell is not a 'physical' place. It would not be to their advantage to dispel this idea because it might encourage the gullible to be a little less gullible.

If I have a dream I can say it was 'real' in the sense that the dream actually happened. It cannot in any way be called 'physical'* since after waking there will be no physical evidence of change - that the events took place in the physical world.
Or as some people would say 'the real world'.

So when the popes talk about Hell being 'real', they are dribbling on about a mythical 'spiritual' (i.e. not 'physical') realm where the mythical 'soul thingy' goes to if a person has been 'naughty'. Utter garbage and based on deliberate historical misinformation. See link:

Hell versus Sheol, Hades & Gehenna


* Neuroscience could probably throw a spanner in the works on that one - neurones, synapses, chemical exchange, etc.

Alan B wrote:Unfortunately, many people (and this includes religionist teachers, who should know better), assume the word 'real' to be synonymous with 'physical', and use it in that sense. Many people do not have the critical thinking skills to differentiate between the two concepts and the popes know this which is why they do not clarify that Hell is not a 'physical' place. It would not to be their advantage to dispel this idea because it might encourage the gullible to be a little less gullible.

If I have a dream I can say it was 'real' in the sense that the dream actually happened. It cannot in any way be called 'physical'* since after waking there will be no physical evidence of change - that the events took place in the physical world.
Or as some people would say 'the real world'.

So when the popes talk about Hell being 'real', they are dribbling on about a mythical 'spiritual' (i.e. not 'physical') realm where the mythical 'soul thingy' goes to if a person has been 'naughty'. Utter garbage and based on deliberate historical misinformation. See link:

Hell versus Sheol, Hades & Gehenna


* Neuroscience could probably throw a spanner in the works on that one - neurones, synapses, chemical exchange, etc.

Thanks Alan - that's what I was trying (and apparently failing quite woefully) to get at. There are probably a minority of Catholic believers who think that Hell is a real, "physical" place, like, for example, Newport Pagnell. How they imagine they're going to exist there, when they themselves will exist only in spiritual form is a tricky one to explain. As is Mary being assumed bodily into Heaven, for exactly opposite reasons.

If a person believes in the idea of an eternal soul, and they're told that that soul may be going to a real, eternal inferno, I would think the problem of whether it's a "physical" place or not is rather low on their list of priorities. If you're getting fried, you're getting fried, whether it's a physical or spiritual place - clearly nobody thinks their actual physical body is going to Hell. *checks mirror*