If a person wants you to research something, minimum courtesy suggests they at least tell you where they’d like you to start, instead of just letting you aimlessly flounder around in the interwebs!  No?

I’ve been around a lot of Baptists and other fundamentalists and I’ve never heard ANYONE suggest hell is at the center of the earth. I’d suggest that he’s one of the 33,000 splinter groups that have ” figured out” Christianity since 1,000 AD.

In a position such as the writer’s, I remind people that it’s THEIR position and therefore up to THEM to provide the support for it; it’s not my job to do their work for them, and if they’re unable to support their position, I can only assume it has neither support nor credibility.

Almost certainly based on the references to the abyss from which the demons are released in Rev. 9. . . .

In the New Advent encyclopedia online there is a section about Hell. It says that the Church has never assigned an exact location to it, but theologians “generally accept the opinion that Hell is really within the earth.” So the Church has made no definite conclusion on the subject, and at this stage it is an opinion as to where it is. Our job is to avoid finding out the hard way.

It is possible that this is a lasting image left over from Dante and medieval artists, who had much influence of popular imagery and absolutely no authority on the matter. The Bible, esp. the Gospels, point more explicitly to a place on the surface of the earth: Jesus says Gehenna, a real place in the middle east. We know and understand that this is not the same thing as Hell, but it has more Biblical support than your coworker’s argument. Personally I agree with JPII about it being spiritual in nature.

If you read the “Mystical City of God” by the Venerable Mary of Agreda (that has been acclaimed by Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops) it list the location of hell in the center of the Earth.  Another book, by someone who isn’t a Catholic, “A Divine Revelation of Hell” by Mary K. Baxter, also indicates that hell is in the center of the Earth.  This might be what the Protestant is talking about and I wouldn’t doubt that it is.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.  As a child, after hearing about hell as being a place of eternal fire, I figured that the sun was where hell is located.  Being older and having studied the nature of the earth, I know that it is not in the center of the earth.  I now believe it is not being in heaven.  That begs the question: Where is heaven?  The answer to both questions of where is heaven and where is hell is that we really don’t know.  On the broader question of creationism, in which I believe, think of the size of the universe.  Thinking in those terms, I believe that with all the spaciousness of God’s creation.  Heaven, hell, and purgatory have a wide range of places to be located.  We’ll find out when we die.

I wonder why people think that a place where immaterial souls exist can be found at a material location in a material space-time continuum.  That’s like asking which block of the city God lives on, no?

I’m surprised only one person mentioned Dante- whose hell started just below Gehenna (the garbage dump/fire pit outside of 1st century Jerusalem), went down from a cave into the center of the Earth which was *FROZEN OVER* (which always gives me a laugh when some American refers to “when hell freezes over”), then he climbed up the legs of Satan himself to a hole in the roof, through a passage, and came out on the Island of Purgatory (on the other side of the world- yes, in 1300, Dante had the idea of a ball-shaped world AND used it in religious art AND yes, Purgatory in in Hawaii and Christopher Columbus was NOT persecuted by the Church for believing the world to be round), on which he climbed a mountain (Mauna Loa?) into Heaven, where the great love of his life met him for a tour.

But that’s all *fictional*.  And NONE of it is in the Bible.  I’d challenge your fundamentalist friend to find it in the Bible.

Then refer him to this website:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm

For what the Church *really* teaches

At Fatima, Our Lady showed hell to the children. Rays from Her hand penetrated into the earth.

Another part of scripture that might be used to support the center-of-the-earth theory is when the earth opened up and swallowed the disobedient Israelites before they entered the Promised Land, presumably taking them to hell.  I personally don’t think it’s terribly important where hell is, though I suppose it’s interesting theological speculation (as long as nobody’s asserting it as doctrine, based on a book or vision of whatever).  I’m not inclined to believe it exists within our material universe, as my assumption is that the material universe would be destroyed once The End comes.  But I’m also open to other thoughts on that.

If a person is only to rely on the Bible, holding the view that hell is literally at the center of the earth has some real scriptural problems. For one, hell is going to be an eternal place of suffering but, Jesus says in Matthew 24:35 that both the earth and the heavens will pass away.

2 Peter 3:10-11 reads “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved…”

So, if everything that has been created is going to be burned up and dissolved, it stands to reason that hell, the eternal place of suffering, is not going to be among that which will be dissolved.

Also, I really like Ye Olde Statistician’s comment.

As a child, growing up Catholic, I was taught that Heaven and Hell are spiritual places not of this world.  In scripture, Jesus is taken up to Heaven, they watch Him rise until they can no longer see Him. So human thinking reasons that since we’re cast down into Hell, it must be under the earth.  I think that’s quite possible but only in the spiritual sense.  If the earth was destroyed, Hell would still exist because it doesn’t rely on the earth for its existence, nor does Heaven.  If God is pure Spirit and created a physical world for us to live in whilst still in our bodies, it stands to reason that the spiritual realm where God is, does not rely on this physical world in order to exist, since it existed first.  These are things we will only fully understand when we get to the next life.

I suspect your co-worker is looking for an explanation since he doesn’t have one, and your faith is strong enough that any research you do will probably have some well-founded answers. Look at it as an opportunity to teach him something that will make him ponder in prayer! ;-)

I wonder why Ye Olde Statistician thinks that the resurrected bodies of the damned are immaterial souls?

I think that in this case Mr. Shea is on very solid ground- pious opinions ought not be scorned.

From what I learned through a Bible study, Hell actually was a physical location on earth.  Both the living, and the innocent, were thrown into the eloquent flaming tongues of fire, by pagans.  The light from it, became known as Hell.

St. John Chrysostom was asked this question. He replied, “Why do you want to know? In my opinion, it’s not in this world [universe, cosmos] at all. But let’s not try to find out where it lies hidden. Rather, let’s find out how to avoid it”

Christ is risen!

@dixibehr- EXCELLENT!!

Who knows, perhaps the Baptist co-worker is referring to this Urban Legand…http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm ? 

I agree with St John Chrysostom. I don’t care where it is, I just don’t want to end up there.

I know this is probably well known and perhaps irrelevant, but here’s my two cents: many Eastern Christians (Catholic/Orthodox) understand heaven and hell to be two very different experiences of the same ultimately inescapable eschatological situation: the Second and Glorious Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This will be experienced as salvation and joy inexpressible to the righteous, while being simultaneously experienced as damnation and inconceivable torment to the wicked.  All the dead will be raised and the true nature and destiny of each person will be revealed by the Parousia (meaning both “Presence” and “Coming”) of Jesus in His exalted Glory.  Those who now delight in Him will see Him as He is, and rejoice forever in His triumphant kingdom; those who now hate and fear Him will be utterly and eternally undone by that same experience. The righteous will thus receive their reward, and the wicked theirs. As far as I know, neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox are required to believe or repudiate this teaching.

Only people posting from there can be sure where it is. I hope nobody.

Yes I do beleive that the centre of the earth is Hell.

Ezekiel 28: 18 ...... therefore I will bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, to devour thee, and I will make thee as ashes upon the earth in the sight of all that see thee.

Reading the above scripture,it shows that since it says “I will make thee as ashes upon the earth in the sight of all that see thee”.it is definitely a reference to the lava which comes out from an erruption of a volcano,therefore it is also through the fire which is situated in the centre of the world,and through this we could also conclude that the earth is Lucifer and his angels substance transfomed into matter.Through reading verious revalations,like Mary of Agrida,ans Saint Gertrude the great,and others,I became aware that God transformed Lucifer and his angels into matter,in order to return to the Father as souls,( US)and on the last day, they also acquire back the flesh body if they succeed.
Through these revelations,I became aware that Jesus’ spirit was within
these spirits,right in that fire as life source,to lead them to perfection through the evolution system in creation,and also as one of them in order to be born as Holy Mary First,the flesh substance for God to be born as Man/God.

Now read and reflect:1 Corinthians11: 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. 11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God

@Rick DeLano- because the resurrected bodies of the faithful belong to the end times, which you’re getting mixed up with the concept of Heaven and Hell.  Two separate theological elements.

Knowing what it is should be enough to convince us to avoid it.  Unless you are planning to go there, why would you care where it is?

Several priests and a Sister were dining at a public restaurant. The subject of the existence came up. A priest turned to Sister and ask “Do you believe in Hell, Sister?  She replied, “I don’t think about it, I’ve chosen Heaven.” :)

In most cases, it’s not a good idea to discuss theology at work.  I have many Protestant friends and although we usually get along fine, there are always—always—moments of tension about the church or theology.

I think this stuff is best left to our personal lives.

Ted Seeber:

I am afraid it you who are confused:

CCC# 1038 The resurrection of all the dead, “of both the just and the unjust,“623 will precede the Last Judgment. This will be “the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man’s] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.“624 Then Christ will come “in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.“625

All, I requested this discussion :] Thank you so much for all of your responses.

When I was younger, I used to think that heaven and hell had actual material locations, but seeing as how souls are not of the material world, I changed that view over time the more I knew God in His infinite being.

I agree that my coworker is the one to offer proof, and the funny thing is, ever since that time, he’s been avoiding talking to me. I will take the stand that since I don’t know anyone from hell tell me where it is, then why even try figuring it out. I prefer knowing where heaven is :] I definitely agree on avoiding the discussion than lingering on the subject any longer.

@Christopher I completely agree with your comment. That was actually the first counter-argument that came to mind when I was talking to him. Seeing as he was a sola scriptura kind of guy, discussing it via biblical reasoning would be the smarter way to go.

Lastly, I am eternally grateful finding work in the south because it actually gives me an advantage to be so open to share my faith at work. I pray that everyone has the opportunity to do so as well.

Again, thank you for your responses :] God bless!

Does it really matter???

The more we can leave in the realm of “pious speculation”, the better for everyone. These innocent discussions tend to create schisms, which only benefit Satan and his allies. Prof. Kreeft has a memorable example of how Hell and Heaven can be the same spot: “...think of a rocker and a opera buff sitting side by side at a rock concert or an opera. What is hell to one, is heaven to the other.” Such insights can only add to the Faith. By forcing a clear and final definition, we limit our evangelistic reach.

  I’d rather speculate on the number of angels in a Conga line, on the head of a pin!

Wow. I have never heard of any Christian since 1700 thinking hell was in the center of the earth.

This guy is some piece of work.

THE HELL WITH HELL.

This is a moot point.  Everybody knows hell is in inner city Detroit.

There is no hell. At least there is no physical place. If you are outside of God’s law, like the GOP is, that is hell.

Shreveport, Louisiana?  There’s a blog written by Catholic Shreveporters, called TruthAndCharity.net.

Just thought I’d say that often when debating a point such as this with a protestant I will leave it at “Well that’s possible I suppose but I don’t think it’s a point that is necessary to debate.” This is a tack I take for instance when a person wants to debate the merits of creationism versus evolution.

“If a state of isolation were to arise that was so deep that no “You” could reach into it anymore, then we should have a total and terrifying loneliness, what theology calls “hell”….. a loneliness which is as inescapable as it is dreadful.”
Professor Joseph Ratzinger

Atheists have the highest rate of suicide of any religious group.  They are decidedly NOT happy.  Angry would be the prevailing emotion, given their actions.

Who cares where it is? The goal is not to end up there.

I saw several misconceptions and too-casual use of undefined words in scanning the replies. I’ll just take one from Christopher, who writes: “hell is going to be an eternal place of suffering”

But the Bible says, “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.” Rev 20:13,14, Douay

If Hell IS the pool [lake] of fire, then how can it be cast into itself?
How ‘eternal punishment’ if ‘hell gave up its dead’ and then was cast away?

I’ve found it can help to go to the original words for ‘abodes of the dead and/or wicked’, none of which is “hell”.
Please research Hades; Gehenna; Tartarus; sheol. Also “soul”, which is the entity said to go there on death.
My usual starting point would be
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20110401a/article_01.htm
but that may displease the ardent Catholics here. :-)
This site
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
is Church-approved, but is dated. (Hell is an English word dating from after the canon. Purgatory is also a post-biblical idea.)

Ah, a Jehovah’s witness steps into the fray.

I’ll grant that Hell and Pugatory are post-Jerome Vulgate WORDS.  But the ideas behind them seem relatively fleshed out by the time of the Revolt of the Macabees, which had them praying for the dead.  Why would they do that if NOT for Hell and Purgatory (Heaven, of course, is a concept that would wait until the Messiah came).

“but seeing as how souls are not of the material world”
And since only the material world actually “exists”, then it is clear that “souls” and “hell” do not actually “exist” anywhere at all.  Of course the purpose of “hell” is to cause fear in the hearts of believers so that they may be more easily controlled.  That is why teaching little children to fear “hell” should be considered “child abuse”.

Greg Williamson- that’s the mistake atheists make.

To paraphrase Fulton Sheen, not one person in a thousand hates the Catholic Church- but there are plenty of Protestants and atheists out there who rightly hate what they THINK the Church teaches.

Existence is not limited to the material world.  The spiritual world is just as real as the material world.  Denial of this is a denial of human reason itself, as well as a denial of the entire category of objective evidence.

And the real purpose of hell is not punishment, but mercy; those who cannot stand to be with God, are away from God.  ( see http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm for the *REAL* church teaching on Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory, as opposed to that nonsense peddled by Protestants and Hollywood)

Pain does not exist for dead people; pain is a physical, material reaction of an evolved nervous system to let the brain know the body is in danger.

The real child abuse is reacting to the existence of hell by preaching to children that the spiritual world doesn’t exist at all.

“Existence is not limited to the material world.”
Your opinion is contrary to science.
“Denial of this is a denial of human reason itself, as well as a denial of the entire category of objective evidence.”
You have no evidence.
“The real child abuse is reacting to the existence of hell by preaching to children that the spiritual world doesn’t exist at all.”
That’s a really silly statement.

@Greg Williamson:
“Your opinion is contrary to science.”

Science is limited to the material world, that is true.  But science is not the sum total of human knowledge- or even human reason, it is a mere subset of the philosophy that is knowable to the human mind.  It is contradictory to reason to assume that science is all there is- and in fact, the scientific method is based on the idea that the universe is based on reason and that there is always more to know and learn through observation.

“You have no evidence.”

Incorrect.  I have 10,000 years worth of research and evidence from several thousand different human philosophies and cultures.  The problem is your bigoted and prejudiced exclusivity, not my inclusivity.

“That’s a really silly statement.”

Not at all.  Children are prone to erroneous thoughts like saying that only the material world exists.  One does a child NO favors by lying outright the way atheists do, and limiting their brains to bigoted and prejudiced hatred.

TED, Good comments—anyone that quotes Fulton Sheen wins the debate in my book.

“the philosophy that is knowable to the human mind”
Better known as “wishful thinking”.
“It is contradictory to reason to assume that science is all there is”
What a silly opinion.  Why should reason conclude that there is something other than the material world - that’s just wishful thinking.
“evidence from several thousand different human philosophies and cultures”
You are not using the word “evidence” properly.  Such “philosophies and cultures” are just wishful thinking.  You have no real evidence.
“Children are prone to erroneous thoughts like saying that only the material world exists.”
Well, they are taught about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and other silly things by their parents.  It’s only later that they learn that they were fooled.
“lying outright the way atheists do”
Your opinion continues to be silly.
“The real child abuse is reacting to the existence of hell by preaching to children that the spiritual world doesn’t exist at all.”
And just which “spiritual world” is “true”?  Of course there are a thousand conflicting religions and they are all wishful thinking.  There is no reason to believe that any of them is true.  It would seem that your opinion is that teaching a child ANY religion is better than teaching a child that all of them are simply wishful thinking.
“wins the debate”
There is no “debate”.  There is science and there is “wishful thinking”.  The fact that most humans are carefully taught the proper way to do their “wishful thinking” when they are too young to think rationally is not any indication that such wishful thinking has any basis in reality.
From Mark Shea’s posting:
“St. Thomas thought ... - who’s to say he’s wrong?”
Science says he’s wrong.
“But as far as I know, the Church tends to leave such details in the realm of pious speculation.”
In other words, any attempt to make sense out of the concept of “hell” is just crazy wishful thinking speculation.

@Greg Williamson- The very fact that you claim “wishful thinking” can exist is an example of a non-material thing existing that is OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE.  In fact, logic, mathematics, and every philosophy that is not science is OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, and outside of the material world.  That you are not smart enough to know the difference between hardware and software and claim that software does not exist, doesn’t make it so.  THAT is wishful thinking on your part- you don’t want to take the extra brains to contemplate anything outside of the material world, so you simply deny it’s existence, hope it will go away, and insult anybody who even attempts to bring it up.

“You are not using the word “evidence” properly.  Such “philosophies and cultures” are just wishful thinking.  You have no real evidence.”

I am using the word “evidence” properly- you’re the one who is limiting it to what you consider “real evidence”.  But if you deconstruct that, it comes down to just an Appeal to Authority- like all other human knowledge.

“Well, they are taught about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and other silly things by their parents.  It’s only later that they learn that they were fooled.”

Unfortunately, all those things actually exist. Just not in the way you expected them to exist, therefore you claim that they were fooled, when in reality, they were taught something very valuable that you decided to ignore.

“Your opinion continues to be silly.”

A good example of a lie by an atheist.

“And just which “spiritual world” is “true”?”

All of them.  The contradictions are only due to the finite human brain trying to force the infinite through a fallible model. 

“There is no “debate”.  There is science and there is “wishful thinking”.  The fact that most humans are carefully taught the proper way to do their “wishful thinking” when they are too young to think rationally is not any indication that such wishful thinking has any basis in reality.”

Which is why I call you a prejudiced bigot- you have decided that all philosophies other than science are false and have no basis in reality, when the truth is entirely the opposite- that all philosophies are true within their own assumptions and fallible, but not falsified, models; including science.

“Science says he’s wrong.”

No, science does not.  Greg Williamson says he’s wrong.  Science says that one must verify a theory with physical experiment and material data that can be replicated.  Science says nothing about Mark Shea, nor about the assumptions that go into any individual theory, nor about the limits of any given experiment.

YOU are not science, Greg Williamson.  And in fact, given the disturbing lack of intellectual rigor in your last post, I have to wonder if you need to contact your alma mater for a refund on your utter lack of education.

Ted Seeber writes: “a Jehovah’s witness steps into the fray ... by the time of the Revolt of the Macabees, which had them praying for the dead”
A Jehovah’s Witness brings the Bible into the fray; you should know already that 1 & 2 Maccabees are not considered canonical by us. Your own people and others say that 1 Macc is useful as Jewish history; your own people (commentators in the Jerusalem Bible) say 2 Macc isn’t even that reliable.
One view: ‘place of departed souls’ not possible, since Gen 2:7 says man IS a soul, he does not HAVE a soul. When a man dies, he ‘returns to the earth out of which he was taken: for dust we are, and into dust we shall return.’ Gen 3:19, Douay. The only hope for life after that is the resurrection, which Jesus will perform “in the last day”. John 6:39,40,44. Martha knew this: “I know that [Lazarus] shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last day.” John 11:24, ibid.

Another view: “Hellfire torture”, whether physical, mental or spiritual, is not possible to the dead. “For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever your hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither you are hastening.” Eccles 9:5,10 ibid.

Another view: “Hellfire torture” not allowed by law, at least in so-called civilized nations, ‘made of men made in God’s image’. It’s a case of double jeopardy: Romans 5:12, 6:7,23 ibid.
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” [Sin punished by death]
“For he that is dead is justified from sin.” [Sin cleared by death]
“For the wages of sin is death.” [Ditto]
One crime, one punishment. But further punishment after death (even if possible, supra, is double jeopardy; unconsitutional.

Another view: “and they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Ennom [Heb. Hinnom, Gk Gehenna], to burn their sons, and their daughters in the fire: which I (Jehovah) commanded not, nor thought on in my heart.” Jeremiah 7:31 ibid..
More from Jehovah through Jeremiah: Imagine people who would deny Jehovah’s sovereignty over humans even as Armageddon falls about them. Who would be more deserving than these, we might say, of ‘extra’ punishment? But God says their fate is simply to be as “dung” on the ground, fertilizer for the rebuilding of paradise.

For all: Jehovah’s Witnesses do find the doctrine of ‘life after death’ to be in their Bible: “And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God knows that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened:” Gen 3
... and some men have been believing that ever since.

Doug, you’re posting on a Catholic Blog, so for the purposes of this discussion, we go with a Catholic Canon and a Catholic viewpoint.  Besides, without that Catholic Canon you wouldn’t have a New Testament either.  As far as I’m concerned, any truth the Jehovah’s Witnesses had, has been dying since October 1, 1914 (and is almost gone today- I know a few 98+ year olds, but by 2030, there will be no more of “The generation that would see the end of the world”).

Yes, I wonder why Non-Catholics always come in with their “guesses” (or that of their church founder’s) and then act like authorities on a subject. We have 2000 years of evidence from the Son of God who founded the Roman Catholic Church. This is our history and a FACT, so please don’t try to “educate” us… do yourself a favor and help yourself to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“The very fact that you claim “wishful thinking” can exist is an example of a non-material thing existing that is OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE.”
What a silly thing to say.  “Wishful thinking” is performed by fallible human (and other animal) brains and thus it is within the purview of science.  That dead things do not do “wishful thinking” is a very scientific observation.
“In fact, logic, mathematics, and every philosophy that is not science is OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE.”
Well, science consists of “materialism” - the material world is everything that exists.  Since both logic and mathematics “exist” in human brains, they are subject to observation and thus part of science.  But “philosophy” is pretty broad.  There are schools of “empiricism” and “realism” that are in fundamental agreement with materialism.  So I think your claim is silly.  Not to mention that such a claim is not relevant to religious “wishful thinking”.  You have no evidence for any religion.
“contemplate anything outside of the material world”
You have no evidence that there is anything outside of the material world.
“they were taught something very valuable”
They were taught that even their parents - the ones that they should trust above all others - are liars and cannot always be trusted.  Why should they trust any one of a thousand religions?
“All of them.  The contradictions are only due to the finite human brain trying to force the infinite through a fallible model.”
Your opinion is really silly.  Your use of “infinite” is simply ridiculous.  All religions are true?  Tell that to a Muslim?
“that all philosophies are true within their own assumptions”
But if they have no way of knowing whether or not those assumptions are true, then the philosophy has no foundation and the use of the word “true” is unwarranted.  So your statement is silly.
“St. Thomas, for instance, thought that hell was beneath the earth (though he distinguished that from the center of the earth).”
Science says he’s wrong.  Science has the data and science says that “hell” is not “beneath the earth”.

“so for the purposes of this discussion, we go with a Catholic Canon and a Catholic viewpoint”
After this discussion, we see clearly that the contradictions of various religions are due to the fact that none of them have any evidence.  They are all simply “wishful thinking”.

“We have 2000 years of evidence from the Son of God who founded the Roman Catholic Church.”
You, too, are not using the word “evidence” properly.  Actually, you have no “evidence” at all.  You simply accept a wonderful mythology.  (Probably because that’s the mythology that your parents taught you).

@Greg Williamson:  if Wishful Thinking exists materially, then there must be a known material method by which thoughts occur.  If thoughts occur mechanically, then there is no free will.  If there is no free will, then there is no thought, and thus, no thinking.  Thus Wishful Thinking does not exist for the materialist- because thinking itself doesn’t exist for the strict materialist.  EVERYTHING in the universe is determined by random motion on the quantum level- higher thought can’t exist in a materialist model.

“What a silly thing to say.  “Wishful thinking” is performed by fallible human (and other animal) brains and thus it is within the purview of science.  That dead things do not do “wishful thinking” is a very scientific observation.”

Brains don’t think.  Brains process chemicals and energy, and turn that energy into messages that travel down the nervous system,  but that’s not thought.  Thought requires a soul- and there is no soul in the materialist model, thus thinking can’t exist for you if you limit yourself to science alone (Sola Sciencetia?).

“Well, science consists of “materialism” - the material world is everything that exists.  Since both logic and mathematics “exist” in human brains,”

No they don’t, because they’re higher thought, and higher thought is beyond what happens in the brain.  It’s immaterial.  It can be *represented* by the hardware, but it is not the hardware.  There is a difference between the ideas expressed by words on a page, and the graphite in your pencil.

“they are subject to observation and thus part of science.”

But they’re not subject to observation.  You can’t OBSERVE thought.

“But “philosophy” is pretty broad.  There are schools of “empiricism” and “realism” that are in fundamental agreement with materialism.  So I think your claim is silly.  Not to mention that such a claim is not relevant to religious “wishful thinking”.  You have no evidence for any religion.”

How can you think?  Thought isn’t observable, and the material world is all that exists.  This is why I call you a liar.  Either the material world is all that exists, and therefore you can’t think, or non-material unobserved thought exists, and therefore you can think.  The two situations are not compatible.

“You have no evidence that there is anything outside of the material world.”

Your claim to be able to think is evidence that there is something outside of the material world.

“They were taught that even their parents - the ones that they should trust above all others - are liars and cannot always be trusted.”

Then you failed to learn the lesson- that generosity and charity exists and should be practiced, should have been the lesson. 

“Why should they trust any one of a thousand religions?”

They should trust *all* of a thousand religions, within the assumptions of that religion.  The only liar is the one who doesn’t understand the lesson.

“Your opinion is really silly.  Your use of “infinite” is simply ridiculous.  All religions are true?  Tell that to a Muslim?”

Just because all religions are true. does not mean they are all equally true.  Reality isn’t binary.

“But if they have no way of knowing whether or not those assumptions are true, then the philosophy has no foundation and the use of the word “true” is unwarranted.  So your statement is silly.”

In that case, then the assumptions of science must be false, because observation can’t tell whether or not things are true.

But then again, what did I expect from a liar who claims to be a thinking materialist?

“Science says he’s wrong. “

No it doesn’t.  Science can’t have any opinion about the immaterial world, because it is limited to the observable material world.

“Science has the data and science says that “hell” is not “beneath the earth”.”

Really?  What data does science have about hell?  Can you show me the white paper that says science can detect the undetectable?

“After this discussion, we see clearly that the contradictions of various religions are due to the fact that none of them have any evidence.  They are all simply “wishful thinking”.”

There is no such thing as wishful thinking in a materialist worldview, because there is no such thing as thinking in a materialist worldview.

“You, too, are not using the word “evidence” properly.”

That is your bigotry and prejudice, not mine.

“Actually, you have no “evidence” at all.  You simply accept a wonderful mythology.  (Probably because that’s the mythology that your parents taught you).”

Mythology requires thought, and thus is not observable by science and thus doesn’t exist.

So which is it Greg?  Do human beings think, or is the material world all that exists?

“Do human beings think, or is the material world all that exists?”
Needless-to-say, I reject your attempted dichotomy.
From the Wikipedia entry for “Awareness”:
“Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with or without a nervous system.”
“This theory contributes a perspective that cognition is a process present at organic levels that we don’t usually consider to be aware. Given the possible relationship between awareness and cognition, and consciousness, this theory contributes an interesting perspective in the philosophical and scientific dialogue of awareness and living systems theory.”
So-called human “thoughts” are obviously based on the material brain.  Your attempt to label “thoughts” as “immaterial” is simply an attempted rhetorical trick.
The fundamental point is that the so-called “supernatural” does not exist.  The so-called “miracles” in your book of mythology are contrary to science.

“Brains don’t think.”
One of those words does not mean what you think it means.
“Thought requires a soul”
The word “soul” is an undefined religious codeword.  There is no evidence that anything like a “soul” exists.
“higher thought is beyond what happens in the brain.”
Your opinion is silly.
“Just because all religions are true does not mean they are all equally true.”
What a silly opinion.  The correct opinion is that the word “true” does not apply to any such “wishful thinking”.  It is a book of mythology and there is no evidence that any of it is true.
“Mythology requires thought, and thus is not observable by science and thus doesn’t exist.”
What a silly sentence.

“Needless-to-say, I reject your attempted dichotomy.”

For no rational reason, I should add.  You don’t understand the difference between the spiritual world and the material world, so in your prejudice, you claim the material world does not exist.  The rejection of the spiritual world is your problem, not mine.  And so I reiterate:

Thought, pure thought, as separated from mere cognition such as any biochemical computer does, is not material.  If you claim to think, rather than merely react instinctively with no animating spirit, then we can readily reject you by Turing’s Law as nothing more than an automaton with no free will.

If, however, you have free will and can THINK, then you are somehow *different* than the lower animals.  You have evolved a non-material thing called a soul- and the soul does exist, else science itself and all of human civilization would be no different than a termite colony.

“Mythology requires thought, and thus is not observable by science and thus doesn’t exist.”
What a silly sentence.

And yet- it’s the logical end result of YOUR silly insistence that the soul does not exist- that human beings are no different than termites, and thus don’t have any mythology or philosophy or civilization or law.

Ted Seeber writes: “Doug, you’re posting on a Catholic Blog”
... which is why I cite/quote the Douay. My post had upwards of eight biblical statements in support of the vanity of praying for the dead, opposed to your one opinion, which didn’t cite the single passage in 2 Maccabees- and you know what your own scholars think of its historicity.

“and a Catholic viewpoint”
The OP itself cites a “fundamentalist” belief about life after death; doesn’t that open a discussion? The days when your hierarchy could restrict discussion- on pain of death- are long past.

“Besides, without that Catholic Canon yada yada yada”
On another Catholic blog someone mentioned, approvingly, the recent decision by a man [the Pope] to elminate the use of God’s personal name from the RC songbook. Meanwhile, the well-regarded Jerusalem Bible continues to use it- and in songs! Ps 23 “Yahweh is my shepherd”, and thousands of other times. Make up your minds just what you think of that “Catholic canon” before you use it in discussion.

Doug, your real answer to this, was just in Notre Dame Magazine:
http://magazine.nd.edu/news/10182/

And written by an atheist.  I suggest you read it.

“so for the purposes of this discussion, we go with a Catholic Canon and a Catholic viewpoint.”
“Doug, your real answer to this, was just in Notre Dame Magazine: And written by an atheist”
Which is to say, ‘We go with an atheist’s opinion, published in a lay periodical.’
OTOH the Douay and Jerusalem and NAB have upwards of eight scriptures, pointed out to Catholics by a Christian Witness of Jehovah, disproving scripturally the ideas of prayer-for-the-dead and hellfire.

I guess it’s too much to ask you to actually read the article- which is entitled “If I was Christian, I’d be a Catholic”, eh Doug?

Just as it’s too much to ask you to actually understand where Catholics are coming from philosophically- and why it’s a rational view in comparison to a cult that predicted the end of the world was going to come in 1914.

Those non Catholics are so funny. They think they can win an argument on a Catholic blog. Why don’t they have their own blogs to debate on??? Why do they bother with us, and our 2000 year history??

“in your prejudice”
I’m willing to be persuaded by “evidence”.  But you have no evidence.  You have only assertions.  Define “immaterial”.
From Wikipedia:
“In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.”
“According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, materialism denies the existence of both deities and “souls.” It is therefore incompatible with most world religions including Christianity, Judaism and Islam.”
I agree.  Most religions are not compatible with materialism.  What evidence can you cite to indicate that materialism is incorrect?  So, it is clear, that in the absence of evidence, it is you who is prejudiced.
“If matter and energy are seen as necessary to explain the physical world, but incapable of explaining mind, dualism results.”
And there is no evidence for dualism, so it is rejected.

“In philosophy of mind, dualism is the assumption that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical.”
Note that the word “assumption” is used here.  There is no evidence that this assumption is true.

“One of the main objections to dualistic interactionism is lack of explanation of how the material and immaterial are able to interact.”
By magic of course.

“Thought, pure thought, as separated from mere cognition such as any biochemical computer does, is not material.”
There is no evidence for dualism.
“You have evolved a non-material thing called a soul”
There is no evidence for a “soul”.  You have misused the word “evolve”.  Human evolution has taken place over a few million years.  Exactly when in that time did a “soul” evolve?
“Those non Catholics are so funny.”
Catholics are much funnier.  They are soooo certain that they are the One True Religion.  The word “doubt” is not in their vocabulary.
“Why do they bother with us, and our 2000 year history??”
I come to laugh at you and your silly conceit.

Greg Williamson, I don’t know you from Adam, and your reductionist view of the word “evidence” is precisely what I am rejecting.  Given that:

“I’m willing to be persuaded by “evidence”.  But you have no evidence.  You have only assertions.  Define “immaterial”.”

That which has no physical form that can be reduced to molecules made up of atoms.  Energy waves are immaterial, for instance.  That is, I’m using the original meaning of the word, whose root is “mater”.  Energy is not mater, and mater is not energy, though they can be converted with a significantly long lever on the conversion process (The speed of light squared, to be precise).

Wikipedia isn’t a primary source of anything other than the ability to edit reality.

“There is no evidence for a “soul”.  You have misused the word “evolve”.  Human evolution has taken place over a few million years.  Exactly when in that time did a “soul” evolve?”

Without written history, we don’t know.  But from archeological evidence, four separate species evolved a soul ~1.5-3 million years ago, one or possibly two of which survive to this day (there’s now some evidence that homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens were able to interbreed and merged in Europe).  The proof is burial of the dead and the rise of religion, which required the ability to tell stories, which requires a soul.  Without a soul, if the materialist view is correct, then NOTHING human beings can do is not predictable.  Under materialism, free will and consciousness and thinking are all just illusions in a deterministic universe.

“There is no evidence for dualism.”

Except for art, for which there is no room in a materialist universe.

My May 9, 2012 3:12 PM (EST) post remains accurate, relevant, and unanswered.

“I guess it’s too much to ask you to actually read the article”
Did read it. Nothing new; a neo-scholastic parades his erudition without any proof of God beyond Ps 19:1, 33:6, and the comment of another highly-educated man: “Furthermore, I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ.”
His CV: “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more: Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews. According to the law, a Pharisee: According to zeal, persecuting the church of God: According to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame. But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ.” And he could work with his hands: “And because he was of the same trade, he remained with them and wrought. (Now they were tentmakers by trade.)”
OTOH there were some without the advantages of the best seminary training, magisteria, and such: “Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered: and they knew them that they had been with Jesus.” What they taught, of course, was the good news of Jehovah’s kingdom; good news for ‘heaven, as for the earth’. What good news could there be for an earth like ours, do you think? Crime, wars, poverty, death everywhere. Who can change it? Warren Buffet? Bill and Melinda? B16?

“Why do they bother with us, and our 2000 year history??”
That’s all??
6000 years of witnessing for Jehovah’s sovereignty: “That upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” Mt 23:35
Witnessing for Jehovah’s sovereignty since time immemorial: “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who has loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and has made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father.”
Down into our day, and onward: “Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD*, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” “The Watchtower - announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom” since 1879.
*Yahweh by name, per a highly-regarded Catholic Bible. ASV, NWT, and Dead Sea Scrolls also use His personal name.

I forgot to mention the SON OF GOD, Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church and it will prevail until the end of time. If this site bothers you so much—stay off of it. Look for the Jehovah site (founded by an ordinary gent, Charles T. Russell in the 1870’s—not 6,000 years ago.)

Gentlemen, Gentlmen!!!! 
First of all, let me state again, I am a Roman Catholic who has had many questions regarding my religion, not all of which has been answered to my full satisfaction.  However, from my almost 75 years of existence, I have found nothing that gives me more peace and strength than my faith in my God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).  I learned quite a while back that you either believe (have faith) or you don’t.  I am college educated and read and research extensively in many areas of study.  My son is a proclaimed atheist and I respect his evolvment to that point.  He may remain an atheist.  I don’t know, but I pray for his return to faith so that he can enjoy the peace and serenity that my faith has given me.  In the meantime, I will love him as I always have.

Doug and Ted, you will never agree as neither of you can “prove” your point.

My basic belief is that there is a God who created the universe and all of us and in his wisdom has given man the gift of discovering his creation and how it works through scientific study .  I believe that he came to earth in the form of a man (Jesus, the Christ) to share in our humanity so that we could share in his divinity.  I also believe that all faiths that recognize God, Allah, Yaweh, or whatever name they give him, can gain access to heaven as long as they follow a good moral code that recognizes the rights of others.  “Do unto others…..”.

Peace and love to all of you.

A thoughtful comment, Eugene.
We Christian Witnesses of Jehovah don’t ‘argue’ any more than our leader, Jesus, did. In response to comments on religion and ethics we use God’s word, as he did. Others rarely do so, relying on the traditions of men. You’ll notice that in this very thread.

“there is a God who created the universe and all of us and in his wisdom has given man the gift of discovering his creation and how it works through scientific study”
Ted’s atheist colleague believes similarly, yet he’s without hope for the future beyond death. Like Richard Feynmann, who believed that particle physics alone can explain the universe. He died while his fellow Nobelists were still looking for those answers. Your own Bible has specific answers:
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”
“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the work of his hands.”
“He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing.” That’s from Job, who lived before Moses, not to mention Newton, Galileo, and Einstein.

I wrote: “What [Christians] taught, of course, was the good news of Jehovah’s kingdom; good news for ‘heaven, as for the earth’. What good news could there be for an earth like ours, do you think? Crime, wars, poverty, death everywhere. Who can change it? Warren Buffet? Bill and Melinda? B16?”
What do you think, Eugene?

BTW, “he [God] came to earth in the form of a man (Jesus, the Christ)”
Shouldn’t that be “God-man”? Just asking. Don’t want you to run afoul of the Hierarchy. :-)

“which required the ability to tell stories, which requires a soul.”
Hilarious nonsense.
“Except for art”
Hilarious nonsense.
“6000 years of witnessing for Jehovah’s sovereignty”
Hilarious nonsense.
“founded the Roman Catholic Church and it will prevail until the end of time”
Hilarious nonsense.
“I have found nothing that gives me more peace and strength than my faith in my God.”
So what?  Therefore your religion is the One True Religion?  Have you tried transcendental meditation?  Drugs?
“you either believe (have faith) or you don’t.”
And once you have been properly indoctrinated when you were very young, it’s almost impossible to overcome that indoctrination?
“I pray for his return to faith so that he can enjoy the peace and serenity that my faith has given me.”
Is that sufficient justification for a religion?  Do you claim that your religion has any actual “knowledge”?
“My basic belief is that there is a God who created the universe”
But, of course, you have no evidence.
“can gain access to heaven”
Hilarious nonsense.  There is no evidence of a “heaven”.
“as long as they follow a good moral code”
But only Catholics are qualified to decide what is a “good moral code”?  Anti-contraception is required?  IVF is evil?  Hilarious nonsense.
“recognizes the rights of others”
Who gets to decide exactly what “rights” someone gets and who gets to decide who deserves those “rights”?  It’s all politics and religion is just politics with an undeserved demand for “respect”.

“Hilarious nonsense.”

If it’s Hilarious nonsense, then I challenge you to find a non-human animal that builds cathedrals.

“It’s all politics and religion is just politics with an undeserved demand for “respect”.”

Yep, and you’ve caused me to lose all respect for materialists because you are too lazy to think or even consider ideas outside of your little box.  I pity you, for you are no longer human.

Greg & Doug: 
Where in my comment did you read that I said Catholicism is the one true religion? I do believe it is the first Christian religiion. 

No, I have not tried drugs.  I don’t need artificial means to enjoy life.  Doug, you speak of Jesus as though you don’t believe that he is God - the second person of the blessed trinity.  In case you don’t know the Catholic faith, we believe that Jesus is God, come to earth in the form of a man to share in our humanity so that we could share in his divinity.  I said what I meant,  Don’t read anything more into that statement.  Instead, give some thought to that entire statement and what it means to us mortal beings - at least to us Christians.  I could write a discertation on that statement alone. 

I was not “indoctrinated”.  I was exposed to Catholicism as well as other religiions, which I have studied extensively, and made the adult decision to remain a Catholic primarily because I believe in the transubstansiation of the bread and wine during Mass.  Of all the faiths that I’ve studied, the Jehovah Witnesses is one faith I could not agree with, primarily because I cannot believe in a faith that puts a finite number on how many people will gain access to heaven. Nor can I believe in a religion that Jesus was just a prophet (Muslims).  I believe that Jesus was God incarnate.  My FAITH says to me that I am right in remaining a Catholic.  I don’t need scientific evidence.

Also,  Did I mention anything in my comments about evidence?  No, I said that you either believe or you don’t.  Have you ever heard of the KISS principle.  It means Keep It Simple, Stupid.

I stick to my statement:  You either have faith or you don’t.  I have faith and I don’t need evidence to live in faith.

Peace and love to all of you.

Greg:  One last thing I forgot to address in my last commentary.  Where in my statement did it say that I believe that only Catholics decide what is a good moral code? 

As for my prayer that my son returns to faith, did I say that it justified religion?  No, I said that I want him to have the peace and serenity that my faith gives me.

Again, don’t read anything more into my statements other that what I printed.  If you have a question about my Catholic faith, just ask it and I will answer it as best as I can, but I will not argue it.  I will simply answer it based on my faith.

“Doug, you speak of Jesus as though you don’t believe that he is God - the second person of the blessed trinity”
Well, yes- I thought it was common knowledge that Witnesses don’t believe that, because we don’t find those statements in your Bible. IOW (a)no written evidence; (b)we have faith in the Bible. Either way ...
for the rest of your post, I’m not sure which applies to me.

The Catholic Church IS the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church—- no matter if YOU believe it—-or not.
Founded by the Son of God, and not a church started by an ordinary person Claiming (only his words, no miracles to back him) that he is the chosen one and his new religion has God’s approval.
End of argument.

Doug:
I wrote chapter and verse to respond to you; however, this site said that I hadn’t typed in the image properly when I submitted it and when I tried to return the previous page, all my comments were gone.  Therefore, instead of quoting chapter and verse I refer you the Catholic Bile “The New American Bible” translated from the original languages and published by the Catholic Press.
John, Chapter 1 vs 1 through 14:  (The copy of your bible that I read seems to have changed the wording).  Part of the quote from my bible says ..“and the Word was God…....“And the Word became flesh”.  Flesh in this case refers to Jesus.  Now I know that is not a quote from Jesus himself, so I refer you to the following:
John, Chapter 8, verse 19: “...If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
John, Chapter 10, verse 30: “The Father and I are one.”
John, Chapter 10, verses 37 & 38: “.....the Father is in me and I am in the Father”

Peace and Love to you

Sorry for typographical error in my last comment.  Catholic Bile should read Catholic Bible.

Eugene

“What [Christians] taught, of course, was the good news of Jehovah’s kingdom; good news for ‘heaven, as for the earth’. What good news could there be for an earth like ours, do you think? Crime, wars, poverty, death everywhere. Who can change it? Warren Buffet? Bill and Melinda? B16?”
What do you think, Eugene? [end quote]
IOW I’m talking about the command at Mt 28:19,20; Mt 24:14.

As to your chapter and verse: The translations used are of little importance; they all read the same.
It’s often said that we take a verse out of context to ‘prove our false beliefs’. I know you don’t want to be seen as doing that, so please pick one verse and use its context to prove that ... ummm ... Jesus is God, or Jesus is the Second Person, or whatever. There are about two dozen scriptures I know of that “prove” one or more things about the Trinity, but none that hold up to serious scrutiny; I usually restrict my reply to one to a customer. This lets me spend my time preaching the good news of the Kingdom. Mt 28:19,20; 24:14. Which one do you want to talk about?

It is clear that from his latest concept that David is into prooftexting, not rational discours outside of Sola Sciptura.

“What good news can there be for an earth like ours?”  The good news of the gospel.  If we live according to the word of God, we can live in peace in this life even with all of the problems on earth.  These problems are the makings of men.  God created a perfect world in which he decided to place us.  At the same time, he gave us free will to live our lives as we wished.  He did this because He does not force anyone to love Him in return.  However, if we do love Him in return by following His commandments, there is the great reward of being with Him forever in paradise.
John, Chapter 10, verse 30 is not out of context.  It is the actual quote “The Father and I are one”.  The “Father” being God and “I” being the person quoted, Jesus.  Ergo, Jesus is God.  If you want to know the entire content of that chapter, read all of Chapter 10 in the Gospel of John in the source that I quoted.

“Translations are of little importance.”!!!!!  Really???  And just how do you think we now can read the Bible in English or any language other than the original language in which they were written?  They had to be translated.

Matthew 28, vs 19 & 20 read: “Go, therefore; and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teahing them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always,until the end of the age.”  One cannot read this to the excusion of John, 10 vs 30 wherein Jesus says “The Father and I are one”.  Therefore, He is instructing the disciples to preach in His name and that He will be with them.  “His” and “I” (in the quote) being Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Blessed Trinity that makes up the one God.

Matthew 24, vs 14 reads: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come.”  I don’t know what point you are trying to make with this quote except that is refers to the “kingdom” and the gospel as a “witness”.  Perhaps that has something to do with the title of your faith.  This verse is part of Chapter 24 which is the chapter wherein Jesus is speaking to his disciples about the beginning of the calamities.  The disciples said to him “Tell us, when will all this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and the end of the age?”  Jesus then goes on to warn them against false prophets, how the disciples may die in defense of preaching the gospel, people being led into sin and how those who persevere in faith will be saved.
You will also find Jesus speaking about restoring the kingdom to Israel in the Acts of the Apostles (Second volume by Luke), Chapter 1, vs 1 thru 9.
You’ve also not commented on why I don’t have any faith in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that is because you (1) You don’t recognize Jesus as God come to earth as man and (2) you have a finite number of souls that can be saved.  Just where do you get that number from?  Nowhere in Jesus’s comments or the Old Testatment is there a finite figure of how many people can be saved. He merely tells us what we must do to be saved.

Peace and love to you

Eugene: “this site said that I hadn’t typed in the image”
It happens. Good idea to compose in Notepad, then copy/paste.

Eugene writes: “1) You don’t recognize Jesus as God come to earth as man”
That’s correct. And I know you disagree with that. No argument there.
“(2) you have a finite number of souls that can be saved.” Yes, some definite but as-yet unknown amount.
Rev 7:9 “After this, I saw a great multitude, which no man could number ... standing before the throne and in sight of the Lamb ... And they cried with a loud voice, saying: Salvation to our God, who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb.”
So, a finite number are saved, in fact a great many, but the exact number not known yet. Right now about 7 billion on earth, almost all of whom have had an opportunity to hear the good news of the kingdom. Mt 24:14. Most of those reject it- they would rather talk about the Trinity. 2 Tim 4:3. Others are too busy with their daily affairs to listen and act on what they hear. Lu 17:26,27. Still others are too mired in the problems of this system of things to consider the possibility of something better. Mt 13:20,21. None of these, if they persist in their errors, will be saved. That’s Jehovah’s standard.

Eugene writes: “John, Chapter 10, verse 30 is not out of context. It is the actual quote “The Father and I are one”. The “Father” being God and “I” being the person quoted, Jesus.  Ergo, Jesus is God.”
First, no mention of the third person; ergo, not part of God.
Second, John writes: 17:3,11,21-23
“That they may know you, the only true God,
keep them in your name whom you have given me: that they may be one, as we also are.
That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you have given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. I in them, and you in me: that they may be made perfect in one.”

So, if you claim Mt 10:30 as stated, I can claim that the Eleven are also God. (Still no word from the third person. Cat got its tongue?) Unless, of course, we take Mt 10:30 non-literally, then Mt 10 and John 17 make sense and are in agreement. (“No, Johnny, you can’t go to the circus. Your mother and I are one on that issue.”)

So much for your trinity verse. Next, “there is the great reward of being with Him forever in paradise.” Why, you’.re right! Where did you pick up that Witness doctrine? :-)
More later.

Did I mention that the Catholic Church provided the BIBLE to the world? The Bible did not go into print until the 1500’s—so the Roman Catholic Church was the ONLY CHURCH before the Protestants (from the word protestors) began breaking away and starting their religions loosely based on Christ’s teachings. Historical FACT—do the research rather than argue back and forth…

Doug:  You are ignoriing the Holy Spirit part of the gospel.  When Jesus speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Holy Trinity.  How do you define the Holy Spirit?

As for the apostles being one with God, that is true also, but it does not mean that they are part of the triune Godhead.  We are all part of God because it states in scripture that we were made in the likness and image of God.  I believe that what you quoted is Jesus praying to the Father that the apostles, who have been give certain powers by Jesus are one with Him and the Father in spreading the gospel, that they are of a like mind and wants us to be also.  We can also spread the gospel, but not with the same powers that the apostles had.  They were a unique bunch of guys.  Imperfect as are you and me.  Again, Jesus chose them for their imperfect human ways to teach them the proper way to live their lives and to then teach others because others had lost their way even so far back as during the Exodus when they worshipped a golden calf.

My belief is that God first spoke directly to the people (prophets) to instruct mankind.  All of mankind did not listen, so he decided to come to earth himself in the form of man (Jesus) to speak to us directly.  However in both instances, he never forced us to love him in return.  Instead, he gave us the opportunity (free will) to choose whether or not to love him.  When we finally do reach that point in our lives, no matter how long it takes, because of his great and divine love, he forgives and forgets and accepts our love.  Even in our period of not loving him, he still loves us.  This is what my Catholic faith teaches me and it has given me great comfort,for like all others on earth, I am a sinner.

Lastly, as I stated earlier, I will answer any questions you may have about my Catholic faith, but I will not argue.  I am not trying to change your method of belief and I certainly hope that you are not trying to change mine because you won’t succeed.  I truly belief that the one Godhead consisits of three devine beings, the Father (God), Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit -  The Blessed Trinity. Good luck in your ministry in trying to convert others to your beliefs.  I do not try to do that.  If someone comes to me and says he or she wants to know more about Catholicism, I will be glad to help them understand my faith.  If as a result of my behavior (living in faith) the information I give them or refer them to, they choose to become Catholic, then that would be good.  Just as God has not forced me to love him, I will not force others to believe in him.  You either have faith or you don’t.  I am blessed in that I do have my Catholic faith to sustain me during my stay on earth.

Peace and love to you

Eugene, you’re out of step with your leaders:
Paulist Evangelization Ministries
www.pemdc.org
On behalf of the wider Church and the Paulist Fathers, the mission of Paulist Evangelization Ministries is to develop effective methods to invite people to believe in Jesus Christ as Catholics or to become active again in the Catholic faith, and to equip Catholics with the tools to further this invitation.
JP Catholic launches New Evangelization Program
www.jpcatholic.com/news_press/new_evangelization.php
John Paul the Great Catholic University is pleased to announce the launch of its major in New Evangelization starting in 2010. At the turn of the new millennium, Pope John Paul II exhorted young people to spread the Gospel to all nations.
Evangelization | Office of Catholic Education
archstl.org/education/page/evangelization
The Church’s mission is to evangelize. Evangelization is the Church’s deepest identity. Therefore, the Catholic school, parish schools of religion, and adult religious education programs which carry out the mission of the Church also exists to evangelize. “I sense that the moment has come to commit all of the Church’s energies to a new evangelization…” (Pope John Paul II). [S/b “blessed” JPII, right?]

Doug:
I am not out of step with my leaders.  Evangelization does not mean that I have to go out and recruit people into Catholicism.  I evangelize by living my faith and offering my faith to those who seek it.  Also, by discussing my faith with you, I am evangelizing. 

I certainly hope that you don’t think you are going to get many Catholics to switch from Catholicism to JW by you posting on a Catholic blog.  Perhaps those who have not studied their faith will convert, or those who were simply Catholic in name only.  I respect your efforts, but until you realize that a mere man (the founder of your religion) cannot compete with the creator of the world (Jesus)who founded my religion, I see little hope of that.  Jesus told Peter, that he was the rock on which Jesus would build His church and not even the gates of hell would prevail upon it.  Sure, we have had some corrupt people in our church, but that had not and will not prevail nor does it take away from the truth of the faith.  Those of us who can separate the wheat from the chafe know that man is infallible and will make mistakes, but the foundation of the Catholic faith, though shaken at times, will never be broken.  Why?  Because Jesus said so.
By the way, when they speak of the “Lord” in the bible, who do you think they are talking about?  You will find that it refers to God and to Jesus who is God come to earth as man.  Example: See Luke, Chapter 1, verse 43 where Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth and Elizabeth says: “How does this happen to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?....” The Lord, especially in biblical terms, refers to God.  L(At the time, Mary was pregnant with Jesus). Also, how do JW’s interpret the statement of the apostle, Thomas?  See John, Chapter 21, verse 27 thru 29 which reads: “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.’  Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.’”  Jesus was confirming his resurrection to Thomas and Thomas finally gets it, that Jesus has resurrected and is God. 
Secondly, you haven’t responded to my question of who you think the Holy Spirit is that Jesus speaks of in the Bible.
Were you born into your faith or did you convert?  If you did convert from a Christian faith, how active were you in that faith?  You probably see that I don’t conisider you a true Christian, because Christians belief that Jesus is God come to earth as man.
I would like to recommend a very good fictional book to you that is a great way of helping a lay person understand the Blessed Trinity.  It is called “The Shack”. I don’t remember the name of the author, but I highly recommend it.

Peace and Love to you.

Doug:  Typo error in my commentary:  “man if infallible” should read “is fallible”

Biblical “evangelizing” is demonstrated at Mt 10. Jesus sent them; two by two; “And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand”; doing so self-supported. Each of these characteristics of the work is supported at other passages. Paul, near the end of his career, said he had done as much: “How I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have preached it to you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Gentiles” Acts 20:20.
The Churches ring the bell and wait for the pews to be filled; the parishoners will be there for various reasons, not all of them spiritual. Jesus went out to seek those who were teachable and wanted to learn spiritual things. (Mt 5 “Blessed are the poor [or, those lacking] in spirit[ual things]*: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek [or, teachable]: for they shall possess the land.” Cf. Ps 37:10,11)

*This must be the correct exegesis of 5:5, because those ‘lacking in spiritual qualities or desires’ would not be called “blessed” or “happy” by God or his Son, and would not be in line to “possess” or “inherit” any part of the Kingdom.

“[not] many Catholics [will] switch from Catholicism to JW by you posting on a Catholic blog.” Of course not. But my goal is not “conversion” but teaching those ‘with eyes to see and ears to hear’. I have time and computers available for this while I’m teaching at schools (as a substitute). What I am doing- and you Catholics are helping me- is laying out in [digital] black and white the great gulf between Catechism and Scripture. (Here’s an example: My posts are full of scriptural cites and quotes- from the Douay- while this serves as Catholic “disputation”: “TED, Good comments—anyone that quotes Fulton Sheen wins the debate in my book.” And another: “a great way of helping a lay person understand the Blessed Trinity. It is [a book] called “The Shack”.)
Secondly, I enjoy research (that’s what attracted me to newadvent.org, which is an excellent site and from which I find this and other blogs), so these discussions keep me mentally sharp.
Finally, Paul recommended that Timothy ‘take heed to himself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this he shall both save himself and them that hear him.’ And so it is: my research into the Bible strengthens my faith in it even if no one else is saved. In that, at least, I have the advantage of your St Francis: I preach to myself, not to birdbrains. :-)

“a mere man (the founder of your religion” You are one of those without ‘eyes to see’ Rev 1:5. “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness”. Others here- lurkers, e.g.- may get the thought and make the application. They may also take trouble to compare Mt 1:25; Lu 2:7; Ro 8:25; Col 1:15,18 and many others.

“when they speak of the “Lord” in the bible, [about whom do you think they are talking?]” Eugene, as always, context will tell which of several definitions of this common Hebrew and English word is meant. If you do not know this, nor know when “lord” or “Lord” or “LORD” is Jesus or Jehovah or someone else, then you misrepresent yourself. (On Apr 18, 2012 11:10 AM (EST) and Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:58 PM (EST) you lay claim to literacy, education, and that erudition on religious topics which ought to come with age.) You can always ask a nearby Rabbi what is the difference between, say, ha’Shem (Gen 18:13) and baal (Gen 18:12). Out of courtesy, please do not ask about “Jehovah” or “Yaweh”; some of his forebears may have had tattoos put on them by good, patriotic Catholics and Lutherans who disrespected their feelings about The Name. Or, you can use this reference: The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever at http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

“... Thomas finally gets it, that Jesus has resurrected and is God.” s/b ‘Thomas finally gets it, that Jesus has been resurrected, period.’ That is the simple grammar of the exchange. “Now Thomas, one of the twelve, ...was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails [etc.], I will not believe.” The antecedent to “believe” is ‘seen the Lord’; that is, the resurrected Jesus. “And after eight days, ... and Thomas with them. Jesus comes, ... and stood in the midst ... Then he said to Thomas: Put in your finger hither [etc.] .... And be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God. Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: [in the resurrection, as above;] blessed are they that have not seen and have believed. This last, BTW refers to us. We have not “seen”; do we believe?
Why did Thomas say, “my Lord and my God”? It’s part of your dogma; you tell me. I don’t need an explanation because Scripture alone(!) convinced me that there can be no Trinity. John 17:3; Rev 3;12, 14:14 ff. I’m guessing he meant (a) ‘You are my God, as Isaiah prophesied (9:6)’, or (b) he was agitated about seeing Jesus and at missing a very important meeting, or both. Ask him, if you get to heaven.
Anyway, time to get back to class.

And Eugene, you are  out of step with your leaders: “Pope John Paul II exhorted ... people to spread the Gospel to all nations”, supra

Doug: 
If I read you correctly, you think that everyone should evangelize like you and the apostle Paul.  We each have different gifts from God and evangelizing according to Paul’s method or yours is not my gift.  However, that is not to say that I don’t evangelize.  As I stated, I do so by living my faith.  It’s the same as when raising my children.  They learned more about what I wanted them to know by how I acted than what I said.  If they chose not to, then they decided for themselves based on their education, personal experiences and social environment. 
And what makes you think that Catholics need to be taught by you when you don’t even support our basic belief in the Blessed Trinity?  Secondly, even Jesus was not 100% effective since many did not “hear” Him or believe in Him.  For those of us who do hear Him and follow His teachings, our reward awaits us.  So if Jesus was not totally effectual, what makes you think that you or I will be?  He could have been 100% effective had He forced himself upon us by His almighty power.  However, as I stated earlier, that is not His way.
The word lord, Lord, or LORD to me, in biblical terms usually refers to God Almighty and Jesus who is God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity.  I don’t have to compare different books of the gospel to ascertain every usage of the word lord.  I am speaking of those times that the word is used in reference to God.  And since I believe that Jesus is God, it also refers to Him.  The same word in the secular world and among royalty has a totally different meaning.  We are speaking here about biblical terminology.
You still haven’t given me your understanding of what or who Jesus means when he refers to the Holy Spirit.
As to the names God, Jesus, Yaweh, Jehovah, or Allah, they all refer to the nameless one.  He said to Moses, I AM WHO AM.  He did not give him a specific name.  Mankind, in our need to define him by name have given him the names mentioned except for the name Jesus which he instructed Mary to name is Son, the second person in the Holy Trinity.  I don’t need the Watchtower to instruct me about the holiness of God’s name especially since you do not recognize that Jesus (name given by God) as God. We Christians honor him by not taking his name in vain as instructed in the Ten Commandments.
  And because you don’t accept the actual meaning of the words “my God” when Thomas said “My Lord and my God”, (you blame that on Catholic dogma), how can I intelligently discuss this with you?  Give me a break!!!!  Either you understand what he said or you don’t.  You don’t have to accept it, but don’t blame Catholic dogma.  If you don’t accept it, just say so.  I’m not here to judge you on your belief system.  As for your remarks about Thomas and asking him what he meant “If” I get to heaven is rather presumptuous and insulting of you.  Judge not, lest you be judged yourself.

Lastly, under whose power do you think that Jesus was raised from the dead?  Just as Jesus (God) raised Lazarus from the dead, He was able to raise himself because He is God.  No one else in heaven or earth can or ever will perform that task.

Peace and Love to you.

Doug:
I don’t know if you’ll be reading this blog again; however, I just wanted to compile one last set of quotations from the bible to show you how we Christians identify Jesus as God.  You stated earlier, on May 12th: ….”We don’t find those statements in your Bible.  IOW (a) no written evidence; (b) we have faith in the Bible…..“  I don’t know which bible you have faith in but all quotes below are from The New American Bible translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources.  Published by the Catholic Press.
Exodus, Chapter 3, vs 13 & 14:  “But”. Said Moses to God, “When I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, if they ask me, ‘what is his name’? what am I do tell them?”  God replied, “I am who am”.  Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.”  Footnote in the bible:  I am who am; apparently this utterance is the source of the word Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel.  It is commonly explained in reference to God as the absolute and necessary Being.  It may be understood of God as the Source of all created beings.  Out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, “my Lord”, was later used as a substitute.  The word Lord in the present version represents this traditional usage.  The word “Jehovah” arose from a false reading of this name as it is written in the current Hebrew text.
John, Chapter 1, vs 1 thru 14:  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things come to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.  What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.  A man named John was sent from God.  He came for testimony, to testify to the light so that all might believe through him.  He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.  The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.  He was in the world and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.  But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.  And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”
Again, I point out that the “Word was God…..and the Word became flesh……”.  This clearly states the “Word” was God .  The Word becoming flesh clearly refers to Jesus.  Now keeping in mind the “I AM” quote referred to in Exodus and the “Word” being God, I will now quote from John wherein Jesus identifies himself as God come to earth as the Son of Man.
John Chapter 8, verse 19: “So they said to him, ‘Where is your father?’  Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father.  If you knew me, you would know my Father also.’”  In this last sentence, he is telling them that he is one with the Father.  Since the Father is God and He is one with him, Jesus is also God.
John, Chapter 8, verse 23 to 28: “He said to them, ‘You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above.  You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.  That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.”  So they said to him, ‘Who are you?’  Jesus said to them, ‘What I told you from the beginning.  I have much to say about you in condemnation.  But the one who sent me is true, and what I heard from him.  I tell the world.’  They did not realize that he was speaking to them of the Father.  So Jesus said [to them].  ‘When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me.”  Within these versus, Jesus tells them twice who he is: “I AM.”  Who is “I AM”?.  I refer you to my first quote from Exodus and the related footnote.  “I AM” is God.  So if Jesus is saying that he is “I AM”, he is telling them that he is God.
John, Chapter 10 verse 30:  “The Father and I are one.”  How much clearly can he say it?
John, Chapter 10, vs 37 & 38: “If I do not perform my father’s works, do not believe me; but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize [and understand] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”  Again, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are one by saying “the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Peace and love to you.

My commentary on John, Chapter 10, verse 30 should read: How much clearer can he say it?

“John, Chapter 10, verse 30 should read: How much clearer can he say it?”
Yet the identical grammar at John 17:22- “And the glory which you have given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one”- “proves” that the disciples also are God, with the same glory as Jesus. This you stubbornly refuse to believe.
As I’ve said elsewhere, there are about two dozen scriptures that are used to “prove” the Trinity doctrine; none hold up to serious scrutiny. I never concern myself with more than one per customer. Your leader trained and sent you to preach the doctrines of men but mine sent me to preach the good news of his Father’s kingdom. What do you think about the prospect of conditions on earth being as they are now in heaven? (Mt6:9) No wars, crime, famines, poverty, false religion. A good prospect, isn’t it? Do you see it coming any time soon?

Doug: 
You have not addressed the core of my last commentary regarding what is written in the bible that you claim to have faith in that Jesus is God.  Particularly his “I AM” quote”.  How do you interpret the meaning of Jesus’ use of the term “I AM?”
As to the apostles being god because of the logic that you are interpretating as a result of my statement,  of the John 17,22, I’ve already addressed that issue.  It is not “identical grammar”.  The glory Jesus speaks of regarding the apostles, is that the apostles be as one in spreading the gospel. “That they be one as we also are one” - In other words, as God and Jesus are one, he prays that the 12 apostles will be as one in speading the gospel, not that they are one in the Godhead of the Blessed Trinity.  He’s making a comparison that the apostles will speak as one (the church) as God and Jesus are one.  Simple logic and construct of the English language.

You also conveniently have not answered several of my questions: 1) What is your definition of the Holy Spirit? 2) Were you born or converted to the Jehovah Witness faith?  3) Who raised Jesus and Lazarus from the dead?

I am not teaching the doctrine of men.  Your leader was a mere man.  My leader, the creator of the Catholic (Christian) faith is Jesus, the Christ, the second person in the Blessed Trinity. 

I’ve already addressed the conditions of earth; however, I don’t know if JW’s say the Lord’s prayer (taught to us by Jesus) that we Christians do, but part of it is very clear regarding the conditions of heaven and earth.  In it Jesus knows that the earth is not perfect, hence the part of the prayer that says: “Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven….”  In other words, we are praying that the conditions on earth will become as it is in heaven, which by logical deduction of the phrase in the prayer acknowledges that earth is not as it is in heaven yet. As to it coming anytime soon, I refer you to what Christ told the apostles at the time of his ascension: Acts, 2 vs 6 & 7:  ” When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord,are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has establised by his own authority.”

“I never concern myself with more than one per customer.”  What do you mean by this statement.  You can’t discuss more than one issue at a time?  I don’t understand what you mean.  Secondly, I am not a “customer”.

Peace and love to you.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-has-a-question-about-a-fundamentalist-theory-about-hell#ixzz1vYHhW6kp

Eugene writes: ““I never concern myself with more than one per customer.”  What do you mean by this statement.”

I repeat: “As I’ve said elsewhere, there are about two dozen scriptures that are used to “prove” the Trinity doctrine; none hold up to serious scrutiny. I never concern myself with more than one per customer.” You read John 17:22 which makes the identical statement as John 10:30, then you fill the imagined blank with words from the traditions of the men you follow. Try 1 John 5:7,8 next time; it mentions all three “persons” and says they “are one”. Why didn’t your teachers tell you about it?

In Acts 2, the phrase “at this time” comes from the Jews’ anticipation of the breaking of the Roman yoke, an idea well known to history. Jesus deflected this, having already given them the “signs of the times” of the beginning of his rule from heaven: Mt 24,25, Mr 13, Lu 21. These signs, along with those at 2 Tim 3:1-5, are visible now, and have been visible since the time of the first war that properly could be called a World War. Therefore we preach that Jehovah’s kingdom is imminent “on earth”. “The day and the hour” we do not know, nor did Jesus during his last days on earth. (Mr 13:32) He knows now, since he is sitting, waiting in patience for his father’s command: Rev 14:14-16.
After the end of this present system of things the earth will be restored to paradisaical conditions, fit for people who acknowledge Jehovah’s authority. They will regain the everlasting life that Adam threw away.  (Ps 37:29) This doesn’t fit the teachings of your traditions, but what part of it wouldn’t you like to believe, if Magisterium permitted?

Doug:  You are still avoiding answering my question.  What do you have to say about the I AM statements made by God to Moses and by Jesus in the verses that I quoted?.  Avoiding the comment made by Jesus is not going to make it go away.  Very early on in this discourse, you said you did not believe that Jesus was God because there is no written evidence.    Well, I quoted the written evidence in words spoken by Jesus, and yet you refuse to comment on that, or has your bible changed the quote as they did for John, Chapter 1?  Unless you dare to discuss the I AM statement, I see no reason to continue our discourse.  You seem to be purposely ignoring any reference to the I AM quotes from the bible that you profess to blieve in.  Specifically, you stated that Jesus never claimed to be God and that’s why you Jehovah’s don’t believe he is.

Peace and love to you.