« Unbelievers should want the Bible taught in public school | Main | Being fuzzy is fine »

March 29, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, if nothing else, the people who are there probably appreciate the respite from eternal damnation and suffering while John Paul II was still in office.

Now that Hell is back, wouldn't JPII be in it for misleading so many people into thinking it wasn't there? From the perspective of Benedict, leading people to ignorance about Hell, resulting in their eternal torture by their loving "God," has to be a pretty damn big sin.

Eternity: not just a really long time!

If you've ever been heading uptown in NYC on the 5 train in August, you would know without a doubt that hell fire exists. And hell's smells as well.

I think of the lineage of the papacy as reincarnation, but out of order and unacknowledged. So, there are popes that have made infallible pronouncements about calendars and world domination, and later those pronouncements are changed by previous incarnations of the vicar.

Of course, none of these popes are aware that they are the same person, so when John Paul II restates a Benedictine view, it's like when I thought the kid that lived next door was a dog. I had to change my mind about that after the "fetch" incident.

We can expect that the next pope will reinstate the sale of indulgences, and require tithing under the pain of excommunication. But he will probably also ban circumcision for his children.

"Thou art Petrus; and upon this rock I have dashed my ship."

Maybe there is no profound truth Brian. No need to worry about a greater good or future generations. Just live our self indulgent little lives of luxury and freedom our fore fathers have provided for us (what chumps eay?). We liberals know the truth. Pullout now, let a million iraqis die, let our children fight the war later. It won't get to me in my life so have a glass of organic wine and forget about it. Life is good, life is fair, i deserve it !!

Limbaugh. Ev'rybody Limbaugh. Limbaugh . . . all de' day!

So far as I can understand it, Hell is getting to be better real estate than Heaven. After all, if you go to Heaven, you have to sit in pews listening to sermons against homosexual marriages for all of eternity, and your neighbors are the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson.

"Despite being a devoutly unfaithful lapsed Catholic, I figured that it was safe to take the blasphemy challenge. After all, Pope John Paul II had rejected the reality of a literal hell."

Yikes how did you get this idea. Look at his book the Threshold of Hoe, Look at the Catechism that he approved, Looked at the Devotions such as Our Lady of Fatima and the Divine Mercy where hell is def mentioned. In 1999 Friday Audience in which I believe you are referring to he did not reject the reality of Hell. He was talking in terems of Aquinas as to "state" vs place.

"Pope Benedict's vision of hell is a lot hotter. And longer, since it's eternal"

Just like the view of John Paul II all the other Popes, scripture, the Church Councils, and scripture

"He prevaricated a bit, but ending up saying that he's pleased the Pope is telling it like it is now (in comparison to John Paul's feel-good Catholicism, I assume). In other words, nonbelievers in Jesus are screwed"
The Church has never said who is in Hell. For those taht never has heard of Christ we trust to the mercy of God. The Chruch doesn't know what happens to them.

"Benedict won't be Pope forever, though. So if pagans like me are able to outlive him, we've got a good chance of seeing the "is hell real?" question take another turn around the wheel of Catholic dogma. The infallibility of the Papacy is strangely mutable."
Boy it gets worse and worse. I see why you are Lapsed. You don't know squat about the Church Teaching. First as I have said the Teaching hasnt changed. Also now it appears you are not aware of what Infalliabilty is or how it is exercised. Not every utterance of a Pope is Infalliable

The dogma of Papal Infallibility was established in 1870 and to my knowledge, is only applicable regarding issues on faith and morales.

Pope Benedict's statement on hell wouldn't qualify as an infallible statement. So, we can relax Brian.

Personally, if Jesus did live, die and resurrected as claimed, then hell most likely no longer exists.

Isn't there a Catholic prayer that states that Jesus descended into hell first after his death before his resurrection?

Well, if he decided to take the trip south, what business did he have there in the first place? Any answers from you Catholics out there?

IMO, if hell did exist and Jesus went there, well, he may have just cleaned the place out for good! If his vibration was divine, all souls would have been liberated from his divine visit.

So, my vote is....hell is no more. The only hell that exists is the one we create for ourselves in our own minds.

"The only hell that exists is the one we create for ourselves in our own minds"

Did we forget about the repercussions of bad choices on our environment? Poverty doesn't seem to me a problem that can be fixed with a different state of mind.


I understand what you are saying.

I would go so far as to say that the mental conditioning we receive from society, religion (our story), nationality, etc. directly affects our attitudes and values, and what we do with our lives.

So, in this sense, I would argue, our conditioning, stories, fears, etc. do affect our attitude toward poverty, the environment, and so on.

If we as a people really valued the environment so much as to honor the Divine Presence within it (like most Indigeneous peoples do), I think we'd see a change for the better in a very short time.

Same with poverty; If we understood our connection as humans to humans and all life, I believe that bringing greater abundance to those in need would be a very high priority to most people.

Just curious about something-how long have you been imbibing the vino? Were you drinking wine when you considered yourself one of the faithful?

The "faithful", by reason of their dependence and reliance upon something other, are not simply deserving of the Vino Veritas.

Brian's lack of reply about his wine swilling history makes me wonder how often he was partaking of the vino during his so called "faithful" period when he should of been abstaining from intoxicants.

Granted, the most important thing we positively need to know is whether, after our deaths, we continue in some form, that permits us to retain our knowledge of self (and what we have experienced during our lifetimes). Does that mean we must accept Christian's beliefs?

They claim, based upon their “holy” (flawed) book, that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, to die for our sins.” All we need do, therefore, is “believe in Him,” (whatever that means) to live in heaven with He and His Father, for all of eternity, sometime after our deaths, when our physical bodies are resurrected* to face God’s judgment on an unknown future date.

They cry out, “Sinners, are you saved?”

“Saved from what,” I ask?

“The wrath of God,” they respond!

“What is that?”

“You’ll burn in the fires of Hell for all of eternity unless you accept God’s plan for your salvation!”

“So, I have nothing to fear that will keep me from enjoying eternal life in Heaven, with God and Jesus in charge, except the wrath of God himself?


“Wow! How’d He get so mad?”

“He hates sinners...and you’re a sinner!”

“Are you saying I made him mad at me?”

“You and all the other sinners combined made him mad!”

“And if I accept His plan, I’ll make him glad?”

“So glad, He’ll forgive your sins and allow you into Heaven on judgment day!”

“Your God...don’t you consider Him to be All Powerful and All Knowing?”


“Yet I, by my acts, have the ability to make Him mad or glad? Gee. How can puny little me have such control over such a Colossal Entity? It would be the height of arrogance for me to think that were so, would it not!?”


“Now you say He loved us so much that he made his only son die an agonizing death by crucifixion, just to appease His wrath?”


“Hmm. He couldn’t have loved his son very much then, to put him through such pain and misery, just to mollify His wrath, when He could have avoided that, by lightening up on the wrath bit!”

“God works in mysterious ways. It is not for us to question Him, or the truths of the Bible!”

“That may work for you, but I think the whole idea is just to far-fetched to be taken seriously. In fact, to me, it is preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, and asinine!

*The last sentence of the above paragraph applies here, also!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.