So celibacy leads to child molestation now? Better warn the thousands of priests that haven't molested kids that they may be at risk...

That's a fallacious argument -- like saying smoking can't cause cancer because thousands of smokers don't get it.

 

Celibacy doesn't necessarily cause child molestation, but it could. What it definitely *does* is create a very attractive haven for those who already have that disposition-- it would be hard to describe a more perfect position for someone with pedophilic tendencies. And suggesting that forcing a man to sublimate his natural sexual desires could not cause those to be expressed in a warped manner is simply naive.

 

What's more, it is nearly entirely unscriptural, invented hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.

So it's logically sound to assume that celibacy can lead to it in some cases? Could it also lead to rape or, as some people might say, homosexuality? Can't really word this well without sounding bigoted... I just think that it's classing an undesirable expression as an unnatural one.

 

If that disposition already existed then access to children would be a larger factor than celibacy. The individuals would probably be as bad or worse in a career that involved more thorough work with children. Wouldn't want those guys working as pediatricians either, for example...

So it's logically sound to assume that celibacy can lead to it in some cases?

Of course it is.

Could it also lead to rape or, as some people might say, homosexuality?

I don't understand what you are saying here, as you seem to be equating rape with homosexuality, but I doubt you mean that.

 

If that disposition already existed then access to children would be a larger factor than celibacy. The individuals would probably be as bad or worse in a career that involved more thorough work with children. Wouldn't want those guys working as pediatricians either, for example...

Yes, but pediatricians aren't sworn to a life of celibacy. That's the point.

 

Do we have massive pedophilia scandals in other churches where there is no celibacy? Not that I've ever heard of. I doubt that's a coincidence.

Could it also lead to rape or, as some people might say, homosexuality?

I don't understand what you are saying here, as you seem to be equating rape with homosexuality, but I doubt you mean that.

In short, why pedophilia and not some other equally stigmatized sexuality?

I did say it probably came out wrong, but that was a lot worse than what I expected :lol:

 

If that disposition already existed then access to children would be a larger factor than celibacy. The individuals would probably be as bad or worse in a career that involved more thorough work with children. Wouldn't want those guys working as pediatricians either, for example...

Yes, but pediatricians aren't sworn to a life of celibacy. That's the point.

And yet unless I'm wrong there was a fairly recent story in the SF Chronicle in which a doctor was accused of molestation.

 

Do we have massive pedophilia scandals in other churches where there is no celibacy? Not that I've ever heard of. I doubt that's a coincidence.

The Catholic church is (To my knowledge) the largest and quite possibly the wealthiest single church. The bigger the target, the bigger the news.

Yea, I'm a little surprised that such a scientific man as yourself Qeltar is jumping to such conclusions about celibacy without scientific evidence. Plenty of people are celibate and do not molest children, and plenty who are not celibate do molest children. There is no reason to believe in causation here.

 

Also, I'm not sure I believe all of these stories coming out about child molestation. I'm not saying I disbelieve them either, but I have reason to be cautious. I believe you're old enough to possibly remember when "recovered memories" were a big social phenomenon. One person came out saying that they suddenly remembered that they had been molested by their father, and then another, then another, propagating from one another. These memories ranged from "normal" child abuse, to elaborate satanic cult rituals. And yet, most of these "memories" turned out to be unfounded. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I think that caution is necessary.

The priests were wrong, yes, but they were not supported and they were reprimanded and many removed for their actions so its not like they were supported by us.

Uh, wrong. Sorry.

 

The church was complicit in covering up and whitewashing the entire affair. The cardinal responsible for oversight of the priests at the center of the controversy was never punished. After years of stonewalling he finally gave a limp apology and resigned as archbishop, but retained his rank and then was given a plum job at the Vatican.

 

That's how the Catholic church handles things, and that's why they don't have my respect.

 

Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not look to control anything. It may appear so, but it does not. It has many followers, yes, and so it may appear so.

It appears so because it is so. We're talking about a church with countless billions of dollars of assets that continues to maintain policies specifically designed to keep the poor impoverished forever. A church with myriad rules and regulations that it invented of whole cloth simply for its own purposes, regardless of their negative impacts (celibacy for priests being one obvious example). A church that allies itself with governments based on expediency.

 

I'm not quite sure when you say the history is bleak.

Uh.. hundreds of years of senseles violence, oppression, anti-Semitism, forced conversions, suppression of science and murder.

 

2. The Catholic Church in whatever they have blocked scientific advancement, as in Galileo, was wrong yes. You know about the fault but I'm pretty sure you didn't know that an issue of apology was declared by a later pope.

Yes.. 350 years after he died! Very impressive. :)

 

The apologies are nice, but meaningless. Regardless, the point stands. And worse, the church still today stands against science and against important technological advancements. Maybe in 350 years we'll get apologies for those too?

 

3. And whatever you read was just wrong. period. I don't need my beliefs and the policy of the Church which I have studied extensively to be told me by someone else.

I have to wonder how much information you get about your religion from sources other than your instructors. Every single source I have found indicates quite clearly the Catholic belief that hell exists and that non-believers go there. They are more credible than someone who is trying to prop up the church.

I find it quite funny how you circumnavigated answering things that hurt your argument such as how we do countless and constant charity specifically aimed at the poor. And if you were to say it is propaganda, then I would be a board member of the propaganda league without even knowing it, and with good intent too.

 

Where do you read? I am not only taught by bishops, priests and theologians. I also take my own time to read the Bible, the catechism, I've read many of the Vatican II documents and I have discussion with laity.

 

Bleak history? You seem to describe only the Latin rite of the Catholics and you omit the other 21 or so rites in communion with the Pope. For instance, the rite I'm from which has been in communion with the Pope for ever consisted of intellects who barricaded themselves in the mountains and deserts who had priests without celibacy and continue to, which would go against your idea that we have faux-regulations to cast a shadow of some sort of guise of holiness. By the way, a lot of the things I understand about my faith is personal insight of it which when I have discussion with my "instructors" as you called them, they find it interesting that I'm not heretical but I have a very unique spin on the understanding of things.

 

Its also very easy to criticize the Catholic Church in the time period were the Italian government as well as most European governments did the same thing, and yet they are not proclaimed evil nations. It was of contemporary thought. Yes they did wrong things, no all Catholics were not involved, and you make it seem like we're focused around money. Tell me, then why do I spend many hours a day organizing other people to help the poor? How does that make me money?

 

How does the Church today still impede science? If the Church morally objects to murdering unborn infants, that is wrong? I will not get into the morality of abortion or anything but how is the gauging of what is moral wrongful impeding of science? Would it have been wrong to stop Hitler's scientists from bleaching babies and practicing other experiments on people because it was for the good of science? Can we truly live if we sell our soul to advance science...for what? Is not the pursuit of science for our own growth? Then should we not contemplate our effects on others by the pursuit of our own interests?

 

And you so "logically" defame the Catholic Church and yet you lack scientific proof and stats for your claim of molestation.

 

I like your generalizations though. Yes, you found me out. I don't believe in a god at all, my involvement in the Church is solely for the acquisition of wealth from the poor and our mob boss is the pope. His regional bosses are bishops, who also run children prostitution rings and every so often we get busted. But luckily our boss, "il Papa" is so rich that he pays off the police and makes it look like it was an isolated molestation. The Catholic Church also controls every third world country, as well as Italy and the former USSR. See, the schism was just a ploy we had 900yrs ago. The eastern patriarchs are actually just associate mob bosses with Il Papa boss. I'm so glad you also didn't find out about how the Catholic Church was behind the black plague, the communists, the fascists, all terrorist attacks and Nancy Pelosi. The terrorists are just illusions as are everything else I named, we pay lots of money to set these things up, but the profit pays off.

Yea, I'm a little surprised that such a scientific man as yourself Qeltar is jumping to such conclusions about celibacy without scientific evidence. Plenty of people are celibate and do not molest children, and plenty who are not celibate do molest children. There is no reason to believe in causation here.

I did not say that being celibate necesarily turns people into pedophiles. I said that it *could*. I also said that the way the RC church is set up makes the priesthood a nearly perfect vocation for a pedophile, whether he has malicious intentions or not. Malicious ones see it as a perfect way to get put into a position of authority and nearly blind trust with lots of involvement with children. Non-malicious pedophiles might try becoming a priest hoping that a vow of celibacy would force away their desires.

 

How exactly would you suggest we acquire "scientific evidence" for this? It's not something you can test in a laboratory.

Where do you read? I am not only taught by bishops, priests and theologians. I also take my own time to read the Bible, the catechism, I've read many of the Vatican II documents and I have discussion with laity.

The bible itself is quite clear about hell and who ends up there. Do you REALLY want me to start quoting chapter and verse to you?

 

Bleak history? You seem to describe only the Latin rite of the Catholics and you omit the other 21 or so rites in communion with the Pope.

The sect that you are a part of seems to be a side shoot of Catholicism to some extent. When people talk about the Roman Catholic church, they are not usually talking about the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

Whatever. This is getting way far afield. I never intended to get into a huge detailed discussion of Catholicism, that's something you brought up.

 

If the Church morally objects to murdering unborn infants, that is wrong?

You're close. I object to the RC church's prohibition against birth control. Unimpeded population growth is the #1 problem in impoverished nations, and ignorant religious pronouncements against it are unconscionable.

 

And you so "logically" defame the Catholic Church and yet you lack scientific proof and stats for your claim of molestation.

Give me a break, dude. It's not like I just made this all up. The rampant abuse among RCC priests is not exactly news.

 

I like your generalizations though. Yes, you found me out. I don't believe in a god at all, my involvement in the Church is solely for the acquisition of wealth from the poor and our mob boss is the pope. His regional bosses are bishops, who also run children prostitution rings and every so often we get busted. But luckily our boss, "il Papa" is so rich that he pays off the police and makes it look like it was an isolated molestation. The Catholic Church also controls every third world country, as well as Italy and the former USSR. See, the schism was just a ploy we had 900yrs ago. The eastern patriarchs are actually just associate mob bosses with Il Papa boss. I'm so glad you also didn't find out about how the Catholic Church was behind the black plague, the communists, the fascists, all terrorist attacks and Nancy Pelosi. The terrorists are just illusions as are everything else I named, we pay lots of money to set these things up, but the profit pays off.

This sort of nonsense doesn't impress anyone.

 

If you think I just made up the link between celibacy and abuse, perhaps you should take that up with the people within the church itself who have raised that very same issue.

 

And yes, sorry to have to point out some inconvenient facts, but the Roman Catholic Church did engage in a deliberate coverup of the widespread sexual abuse problem in the church, secretly paying off dozens of victims. They were much more concerned with their "public image" than with the children who were abused -- and lucky that they have lots and lots of money at their disposal.

 

Before the predictable flaming begins, my issue is not with all Catholics. And I fully acknowledge that the Catholic church does a lot of good. My problem is with the people in charge of the church and their priorities. Their handling of the abuse issues has been shameful and is indefensible. And yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that the celibacy requirement is part of it.

You might have to start quoting chapter and verse about hell, modern conceptions of hell are not very consistent with the biblical version, the biblical version being much less explicit, often referring to it as simply "a place where there will be much gnashing of teeth." I'm genuinely curious on the point, I don't disagree with you.

 

And I suppose scientific evidence might have been the wrong word; possibly data analysis or an observational study might be better. Seeing as an observational study would be hard to find truth in, data analysis about proportions of pedophiles in the clergy versus the proportion in the general population might be better, though you'd be hard pressed to find accurate statistics in either case. So I suppose it would be difficult, though that doesn't mean we can make claims like that; quite the opposite really. If you do, you end up no better off than the theists you're debating against. Though I guess in your case you neither claimed to be nor defamed them for making such claims.

 

In short, anything COULD cause anything, you're making one thing seem more plausible than others, and that's dangerous in any sort of logical inquiry.

 

I don't take issue with your points about the Catholic church; I do, however, take issue in your connections of celibacy with abuse. There are plenty of celibate people who do not engage in pedophilia.

Continueing what flyingjj said, I'm also pretty sure pervertions are a psychological cause, and not a conditional one.

Sorry to jump in without reading all the posts, or even the most recent ones, but some of those are just massive. I noticed you were saying there can be no proof either way in the God/ no God arguement.

 

When you have removed all other possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

I know for certain that the religious works, such as the Bible, the Quran, etc., are created by man. Therefore, they cannot be trusted as proof, and most of them have massive fallacies which their respective theists attempt to escape by saying, "Oh, it was just a metaphor". This means that if a God exists, he is almost definitely not the god depicted in modern religions. What logical support remains for God? We can say with almost complete certainty that God was created by man as a solution to those questions that have no answer. As we answer these questions, proof of God is disproved, until all you have left is an idea and a bunch of ridiculous traditions.

 

 

It is impossible to prove God exists. Therefore, he cannot exist. Somebody mentioned Bigfoot; can you prove he doesn't exist? Of course not, but you can disprove any quack who shows up with a home-made footprint. Should we accept him as a possible organism? Technically, sure, that .0001% of uncertainty has a right to be heard. But should he be put on the endangered species list? Or taught about in Biology classes?

 

What is the difference between Bigfoot and God?

 

And thats where the debate breaks down. As you pointed out, The Bible, Qua'ran, etc has been physically written by man, however the vast vast majority of theists will say that it was inspired by God. Which is where the atheists call the theists "delusional," or "believe in silly little fairy tales." And the theists state that the Atheists refuse to believe. A stalemate we've reached, however, I will side with Rien, in that *even though I am a Christian* even if you're an Atheist, and as many Atheists boast you MUST keep an open mind. What if there was a God, would you really want to ignore him? Or her? It? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster really existed, and he came down to Earth in Italy, and thats where we get the name Spaghetti from. I mean, of course that sounds ridiculous, but if you shut your mind to the possibilities, you shut your mind to truth. To knowledge, and to wisdom. Sure, you can say "I have an open mind, I just don't believe God exists." ok thats fine, but if you never let yourself even consider the existence of a God, then you don't have an open mind, simply one thats not all the way shut. And if you keep an open mind about God, you'll learn to keep an open mind about many other things, and perhaps you'll learn a lot. *note, most of this post isn't directed at yo per se, I just chose to write this in this post as I was writing my earlier response.

 

Continueing what flyingjj said, I'm also pretty sure pervertions are a psychological cause, and not a conditional one.

I agree. Completely. And as controversial (well it might not be controversial at all in fact) as this statement may be, its what I believe lol:

I don't really think pedophilia, or bestiality, or other "perversions" are well, perverted. Not just because I believe it's psychological, but I believe that a perversion is an act perform with malice, or an intent to do wrong. However, if an old man is attracted to young children, is that wrong? In our society yes, but you can't change what you like. Maybe (as many people suspect) things like pedophilia and cannibalism happens when a person goes through extreme psychological duress as a child, they're brain might not be able to work like most (pretty much common knowledge.) however, what I've been wondering is, if you could really *cure* the "perversions" such as pedophilia and cannibalism what do you think would happen to the "subject" ? I personally think they would go crazy (if they weren't already) simply because the mind couldn't go through such stress, and it'd snap. I mean its whole way of functioning for most of its life is now wrong and it has to re-circuit everything. Whats your guys opinions? *note, there's not really any scientific backing in this posting, simply pondering*

I agree. Completely. And as controversial (well it might not be controversial at all in fact) as this statement may be, its what I believe lol:

I don't really think pedophilia, or bestiality, or other "perversions" are well, perverted. Not just because I believe it's psychological, but I believe that a perversion is an act perform with malice, or an intent to do wrong. However, if an old man is attracted to young children, is that wrong? In our society yes, but you can't change what you like. Maybe (as many people suspect) things like pedophilia and cannibalism happens when a person goes through extreme psychological duress as a child, they're brain might not be able to work like most (pretty much common knowledge.) however, what I've been wondering is, if you could really *cure* the "perversions" such as pedophilia and cannibalism what do you think would happen to the "subject" ? I personally think they would go crazy (if they weren't already) simply because the mind couldn't go through such stress, and it'd snap. I mean its whole way of functioning for most of its life is now wrong and it has to re-circuit everything. Whats your guys opinions? *note, there's not really any scientific backing in this posting, simply pondering*

 

Umm... Recently (in Israel) a pedophile man was interviewd, and he admitted that the acts he had committed were sort of an addiction, and that addictions can be cured. He said that for 2 (or was it 5?) years now, he's "clean", and that after psychiatric help and some medication, he can stop, and did stop, and that anyone with this sort of an addiction should do his best at trying to cure it. Currently he's in a relationship with a mature woman. So I don't know about the "subjects" going crazy part...

 

I'd add a video, but it's in Hebrew so that would be pointless...

You might have to start quoting chapter and verse about hell, modern conceptions of hell are not very consistent with the biblical version, the biblical version being much less explicit, often referring to it as simply "a place where there will be much gnashing of teeth." I'm genuinely curious on the point, I don't disagree with you.

Well, this seems like a decent place to start.

 

And I suppose scientific evidence might have been the wrong word; possibly data analysis or an observational study might be better.

The Catholic church itself is a pretty darned good observational study. It has *massive* pedophile problems, and other Christian churches do not. This doesn't prove that celibacy causes the problems, but given common sense and what we can observe, it's enough for the issue to start being raised even by the few brave people in the Catholic clergy who are willing to admit there is a problem.

 

I don't take issue with your points about the Catholic church; I do, however, take issue in your connections of celibacy with abuse. There are plenty of celibate people who do not engage in pedophilia.

Again, this is a logical fallacy. I never said ALL celibate people engage in pedophilia.

I agree. Completely. And as controversial (well it might not be controversial at all in fact) as this statement may be, its what I believe lol:

I don't really think pedophilia, or bestiality, or other "perversions" are well, perverted. Not just because I believe it's psychological, but I believe that a perversion is an act perform with malice, or an intent to do wrong. However, if an old man is attracted to young children, is that wrong? In our society yes, but you can't change what you like. Maybe (as many people suspect) things like pedophilia and cannibalism happens when a person goes through extreme psychological duress as a child, they're brain might not be able to work like most (pretty much common knowledge.) however, what I've been wondering is, if you could really *cure* the "perversions" such as pedophilia and cannibalism what do you think would happen to the "subject" ? I personally think they would go crazy (if they weren't already) simply because the mind couldn't go through such stress, and it'd snap. I mean its whole way of functioning for most of its life is now wrong and it has to re-circuit everything. Whats your guys opinions? *note, there's not really any scientific backing in this posting, simply pondering*

 

Umm... Recently (in Israel) a pedophile man was interviewd, and he admitted that the acts he had committed were sort of an addiction, and that addictions can be cured. He said that for 2 (or was it 5?) years now, he's "clean", and that after psychiatric help and some medication, he can stop, and did stop, and that anyone with this sort of an addiction should do his best at trying to cure it. Currently he's in a relationship with a mature woman. So I don't know about the "subjects" going crazy part...

 

I'd add a video, but it's in Hebrew so that would be pointless...

 

 

o.... there goes my theory.

Before the predictable flaming begins, my issue is not with all Catholics. And I fully acknowledge that the Catholic church does a lot of good. My problem is with the people in charge of the church and their priorities. Their handling of the abuse issues has been shameful and is indefensible. And yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that the celibacy requirement is part of it.

I recall one atheist TIF user who said something along the lines of the problem being the upper tier of the church while much of the rest of it is more progressive... Of course that post was a year ago and the guy since left, so this may not be a credible paraphrasing of it.

 

As for the pedophile thing: That sounds very interesting. May have to look it up to see if there are any English translations. :grin:

Before the predictable flaming begins, my issue is not with all Catholics. And I fully acknowledge that the Catholic church does a lot of good. My problem is with the people in charge of the church and their priorities. Their handling of the abuse issues has been shameful and is indefensible. And yes, there's plenty of reason to believe that the celibacy requirement is part of it.

I recall one atheist TIF user who said something along the lines of the problem being the upper tier of the church while much of the rest of it is more progressive... Of course that post was a year ago and the guy since left, so this may not be a credible paraphrasing of it.

 

As for the pedophile thing: That sounds very interesting. May have to look it up to see if there are any English translations. :grin:

 

I doubt it, 'cause it took me about 10 minutes finding a Hebrew version on YouTube.

 

 

If you wish to look it up anyway, then it's a Talk Show with Avri Gilad. Good luck.

@qeltar

I haven't had he chance to respond to your last post. Your statement of if I wanted to hear you start quoting verses? Yes. Why do I say yes? Because the modern concept of hell was post-cannon, for instance you won't find the seven deadly sins listed together or the circles of hell or the princes of hell. You'll probably find some reference to Sheol in the OT and think its hell and quote that. It's very easy to quote something out of context and it seems to suit an argument. That is why I don't like when people quote the Bible to disprove when they pick from different sources, different books and only sections of an idea and are like look, they contradict, or look it says X.

That's a rather strange post. You complain about people picking and choosing from the Bible, in the same breath that you talk about "modern concepts of hell" being "post-canon", when the latter really means "stuff that men made up later because they didn't like what earlier men made up based on what was in the bible itself".

 

Picking and choosing and interpretation is part of ALL belief systems, because all holy books are old, often mistranslated and usually quite vague.

 

This has nothing to do with misquoting the OT. Every respectable RC reference makes it very clear that hell is part of the RC belief system. If you want to convince me otherwise, please provide some evidence.

 

As just one example, the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

 

The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.

 

The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.27.2; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq.

 

...

 

Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated.

..and much more, at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

That's a rather strange post. You complain about people picking and choosing from the Bible, in the same breath that you talk about "modern concepts of hell" being "post-canon", when the latter really means "stuff that men made up later because they didn't like what earlier men made up based on what was in the bible itself".

 

Picking and choosing and interpretation is part of ALL belief systems, because all holy books are old, often mistranslated and usually quite vague.

 

This has nothing to do with misquoting the OT. Every respectable RC reference makes it very clear that hell is part of the RC belief system. If you want to convince me otherwise, please provide some evidence.

 

As just one example, the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

 

The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.

 

The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.27.2; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq.

 

...

 

Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated.

..and much more, at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

It wasn't hell I was denying. It was that you could find a verse that says even if you're a perfectly good atheist you will burn in hell [in the Bible]. I find a particular problem with what you quoted above as well as Limbo was never an official RC teaching, clarified by its official renunciation by Pope Benedict XVI. Where you cited from may be called Catholic Encyclopedia but it is little less then heretical.

 

And you're commentary on holy books is true they are ancient and sadly many tend to mistranslate them, that's why I have studied to read the Bible in Aramaic and Old Greek [with the occasional help of a dictionary] but not Hebrew. It is not the book itself that is vague but the translation as many things are originally written with specific words (a well known example is love as opposed to agape, philia and eros) as well as a poor contextual understanding (i.e. in Isaiah, he predicts the king will have a child with a virgin, a pregnant virgin being a young lady who gives birth not a woman with her virginity who conceives through parthenogenesis).

That's a rather strange post. You complain about people picking and choosing from the Bible, in the same breath that you talk about "modern concepts of hell" being "post-canon", when the latter really means "stuff that men made up later because they didn't like what earlier men made up based on what was in the bible itself".

 

Picking and choosing and interpretation is part of ALL belief systems, because all holy books are old, often mistranslated and usually quite vague.

 

This has nothing to do with misquoting the OT. Every respectable RC reference makes it very clear that hell is part of the RC belief system. If you want to convince me otherwise, please provide some evidence.

 

As just one example, the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum).

 

The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention.

 

The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matthew 5:29; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 25:41, 46; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 21:8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.27.2; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq.

 

...

 

Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated.

..and much more, at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

It wasn't hell I was denying. It was that you could find a verse that says even if you're a perfectly good atheist you will burn in hell [in the Bible]. I find a particular problem with what you quoted above as well as Limbo was never an official RC teaching, clarified by its official renunciation by Pope Benedict XVI. Where you cited from may be called Catholic Encyclopedia but it is little less then heretical.

 

And you're commentary on holy books is true they are ancient and sadly many tend to mistranslate them, that's why I have studied to read the Bible in Aramaic and Old Greek [with the occasional help of a dictionary] but not Hebrew. It is not the book itself that is vague but the translation as many things are originally written with specific words (a well known example is love as opposed to agape, philia and eros) as well as a poor contextual understanding (i.e. in Isaiah, he predicts the king will have a child with a virgin, a pregnant virgin being a young lady who gives birth not a woman with her virginity who conceives through parthenogenesis).

 

On your last paragraph, I've noticed the same thing in a sense. People will translate words from hebrew to English, but the translation won't be the same meaning, giving a convoluted message. (Like translation confectionery to cake, when it could mean candy. I really wanna learn hebrew\greek\latin. Spanish is boring fml.