Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Darren F. Provine)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Fallen Fundie Rambles On...
Message-ID: 
Date: 12 Aug 89 01:45:05 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 116
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu


I've lots of mail and a few articles here, and I also have an Epilogue to
my earlier posting.

I'll just pick up where I left off last time, and hope to address most
of what needs addressing . . .


The person mentioned in my last article saw it, and after reading it
he asked me (utterly astonished) "Did I say *that*?"

After assuring him he did, he apologised and offered the twofold
explanation that he was taken by surprise by my statement, and meant
to be questioning what I said (instead of passing judgement).  [ The
careful reader will note that this was the hypothesis suggested by
our Thoughtful Moderator. ]

I accepted his apology, we've straightened ourselves out, and I am
once again the Jolly Heretic of the Baptist Church.  (Do keep in mind,
however, that a `liberal' Southern Baptist would be considered a
Ultra-Fundie virtually anywhere else.  1/2 8^)

Maybe the net is useful after all . . .

-=-=-

That leaves us with a few dangling loose ends from my last article, which
I'll see if I can't weave together (or at least make into a hopelessly
tangled knot  8-).

Firstly, there's the observation that I carefully left out the context
of the conversation in question -- it was about imagery from Dante, and
I was attempting to discourage overemphasis on metaphors as being
literally true.

That's what so amazed me about the answer -- I didn't imagine that anybody
over the age of 12 took that stuff literally anyway (well, except maybe
Jack Chick  1/2 8-), and had I been allowed to finish my paragraph then
that would have been clear.


Now, of course, there's the question of what I actually think (since
I've started the discussion and said essentially nothing).

For starters, I don't think Hell (or Heaven) is a place in our usual
terminology of 3-dimensional coordiate space.  You don't `go there'
in the same way that you go to Hell, Michigan.  If I'm wrong, well,
it'll be neat if we get pictures from Pioneer...

I'm not sure about time, but I tend to doubt that there's any of that
`in' either Heaven or Hell.  As has been mentioned in the Trinity War
over in talk.religion.misc, God's existence is not required to be on
the same plane than ours is, so assuming that (Heaven|Hell) is going to
be a lot like the existence we have now seems a tad bogus.

Given all that, the idea of a `literal Hell' (meaning eternal torment
in a place with Bad Stuff) makes no sense to me -- if there's no `there'
there, and if there's no `eternal' there, then `it' must be something else.


Now, the standard objection here would be that it's speculation (which is
true), and that it's not in the Bible (which is also true).  But it doesn't
*contradict* the Bible in any way that I'm aware of, and I'm not making
any pronouncements about what Hell is (since I haven't been there myself).


And the specifics don't seem terribly important in practice -- most people
agree that there is some kind of judgement, and Jesus spoke of Gehenna as a
Bad `Place' -- so quibbling over the particulars of what Bad `Things' are
`There' seems to me a divisive exercise, and to no particular end.  (That
is, having arguments and using doctrinal differences to draw lines between
`us' and `them' -- having an interesting philosophical discussion about this
stuff is a different matter.)


Brian T. Coughlin's theory of being reincarnated and sent back to Earth
"until you get it right" is interesting, but it seems to go against the
Scriptural statement that "it is appointed to each man once to die" (in
Hebrews 9:27).  Have you considered that, Brian, and if so what is your
resolution?


Walter Smith says that he does believe there is a Hell, and as he doesn't
elaborate on what he thinks it is I suppose the standard idea is what he
means.  If I'm incorrect, Walter, can you add something?

Walter asks:

>This person, does he also say you must believe in the trinity, or
>any other particular doctrines?

As the moderator guessed, the person in question wasn't laying down any
Laws of Correct Belief when we talked, but was merely astonished.  His
comment during our more recent discussion was "I think that the Word of
God is powerful enough to speak to people and make them Christians even
if their beliefs are wrong, when their hearts are in the right place.  I
guess that's sort of Christian-By-Accident."

So maybe even I qualify.  8^)


Herr Moderator commented:

>The nearest the Southern Baptists have to an authoritative confession
>(unless the recent attempt to purge "liberals" from the seminaries has
>caused things to change) is a document from 1925.

_The Baptist Faith and Message_ is still the closest thing we have to a
creed, and it is still non-binding (last I heard).  I don't expect it to
become binding (although You Never Can Tell).  [The astute reader will
notice that The Baptist Faith and Message was promulgated in 1925. --clh]


kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu        Darren F. Provine         ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
"Now I'm afraid to meet Michael Siemon; he'll probably have three heads or
 something..." -- Charley Wingate, after we had dinner with Bill Jefferys.