Sean Martin: Sympathy for those who grieve, hmm, perhaps. But for the departed, if they were someone I disliked as much as Falwell? Glad to see ’em gone. Wish it had been sooner.
Jerry Chandler: …And I will not for one moment mourn his passing. However, there is a difference between that and publicly stating great joy and enjoyment in the man’s death. …
… For that I will not express joy or glee in his passing or his possible fate in the afterlife.
Yes, Jerry, I am glad he is gone. Yes, I wish he had been removed from the world’s stage earlier so that he would have done less damage. Yes, I disliked the man.
But note that I didn’t use stronger terms like hated or detested. And I certainly never said that I was taking “great joy and enjoyment”, or “expressing glee”.
I disliked him for a variety of reasons. I’m glad he’s gone. And (the main point I was making) I won’t change the opinion I express about him just because he is dead.
As for my feelings about him dropping me somehow to his level, I never wanted to tell him how to live his life. I just want him not to tell me how to live mine. He dislikes me because of what I AM. I dislike him because of what he wants to do to me.
To me, that is a VAST difference.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM
The first sentence says it is unwise to second-guess God’s will. I took this entire paragraph to mean that it was not only impossible to know the mind of God, but also that we shouldn’t question God’s decisions, since that is what “second-guessing” means.
Fair enough. I did indeed misuse the term “second-guessing.” As I feared, it was not your interpretation that was to blame. I did a poor job of expressing myself. It was therefore really šhìŧŧÿ of me to cast aspersions on your reading skills, and again I profusely apologize.
It’s like this: I’d never tell anyone to “submit to God’s will” or advise them not to “question God’s will” because I don’t believe any of us can know His will. For that reason, I would instead advise people not to claim that they know who will or will not be dámņëd (assuming, again, that dámņáŧìøņ is one of the options in the afterlife, and I don’t know that it is). I believe it was Susan B. Anthony who observed how conveniently those who claim to know the will of God interpret that will in a way that is consistent with their personal biases. I believe Jerry Falwell did so. I also believe that those who declare that Falwell is in for a surprise in the afterlife are doing the same thing. In other words: if one doesn’t want to be like Falwell, then don’t be cheering for him to Burn, because that was Falwell’s shtick.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM
I also feel that way about all the Christians who are pro-death penalty, btw. They’re in favor of criminals being killed and yet they claim to hold the Bible sacred, despite the Bible saying it is unacceptable to kill? Pick one or the other, people. You can’t have both.
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.” This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe “you shall not murder” is a more accurate translation for that reason.
Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 10:07 PM
That was Job’s challenge to God, was it not? And God never said Job was wrong — He said Job was as right as any of the men among him but still invoked His privilege as God to do as He pleased.
I had forgotten he’d said anything like that, Mike. If so, it kind of sticks in my craw since it seems very much like saying “might makes right.”
Also, I’ve heard many adjectives like “infallible” used to describe God, the belief among those who describe him as such being that because of his infallibility, he knows best and we should do what he says. It’s been a very long time since I read Job, so I’ll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn’t infallible?
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 16, 2007 08:36 PM
I’ve never understood the indignant have-some-respect-for-the-dead admonishment. As corpses (as in life) people should get the level of respect they earn and have shown to others.
It’s the same principle as not kicking somebody when they’re down, I think.
Nobody’s telling you what to think about him, certainly nobody’s suggesting you sing the man’s praises. They just feel that there’s something wrong with gloating about the death of a human being, whatever kind of person they were. That being said, I looked at your earlier posts and you don’t appear to be doing that. There’s nothing wrong with simply saying “Good, he’s dead,” as far as I’m concerned. (Long as you’re not, you know, at his funeral when you say it or anything…)
> “I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812.”
I’m sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in ’41?
>… that the way to combat demagougery is not with more demagougery, since the dictators are better at it than you are; instead, you fight them by making them look ridiculous, so it’s harder for people to take them seriously.
I guess Mack Reynolds agrees, because he had one Section G story where its operatives topple a planetary government by subjecting it to open ridicule.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.” This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe “you shall not murder” is a more accurate translation for that reason.
I see. Oy. It’s troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.
The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn’t seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as “blood and guts” in one “Law & Order” episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody. It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?
I’m sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in ’41?
Yeah, must’ve been. Also, Hawaii is one of the “freak states.” (Simpsons quote there, not Falwell.)
When I read that, I thought “Why did God supposedly start protecting the United States only AFTER the War of 1812? Did it deserve to get attacked back then as well?”
“There are lots of people who would grieve Bin Laden’s passing. So why shouldn’t you be precluded from thinkin much beyone “Oh, well” for him?”
Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
PAD
PAD – I agree that Bin Laden’s passing wouldn’t choke me up at all. When (if) he is caught or obliterated I’ll be very glad BUT it’s a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure – I think they’re (mostly) wrong, but they’re out there. The restraint you recommended at the start of the string is a good idea even in discussing characters far worse than Jerry Falwell, because our joy at their deaths is likely to harden the hearts and wills of their followers. As an example, if during World War II it had been possible to kill Hitler and induce his successor to surrender, it might have been counterproductive to exult before the deal was made. That’s just the most extreme example I can imagine: Anyone should understand why we’d feel justified in our celebration, but it could still do us harm.
Well, I see what you mean, and don’t want to ridicule it. This is much more a tactical than an ethical problem.
I had forgotten he’d said anything like that, Mike. If so, it kind of sticks in my craw since it seems very much like saying “might makes right.”
Also, I’ve heard many adjectives like “infallible” used to describe God, the belief among those who describe him as such being that because of his infallibility, he knows best and we should do what he says. It’s been a very long time since I read Job, so I’ll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn’t infallible?
As a pre-Law & Order debate, the specifics of the Book of Job are very esoteric to a modern reader and dense to parse through. I just remember God telling everyone to lay off of Job, then giving Job a taste of what it means to create and maintain the universe, and Job bowing to God. It was only pointed out to me that “might makes right” is the only interpretation of God’s response that resembles any sense. If God is infallible (again, Jung pointed out that Satan may have demonstrated that grace is beyond God where such a limitation of God was not demonstrated before — think perhaps of the desolation of the Q-continuum) it’s from His privilege, not His reason.
Dante said the angels sing the laughter of the universe, which is halleluJah, and Chesterton said angels fly because they take themselves lightly. Reason is not all things to any of us — and what is our model of God but (He who is responsible for) that which is all things to us?
When (if) [bin Laden] is caught or obliterated I’ll be very glad BUT it’s a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure – I think they’re (mostly) wrong, but they’re out there.
The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.”
What it says in Hebrew is: ‘lo tirtsach,’ which means: ‘do not commit murder,’ assuming the word in hebrew today has the same meaning as it did back then. The text doesn’t say: ‘lo taharog’ which means ‘do not kill.’
———-
“The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn’t seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as “blood and guts” in one “Law & Order” episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?”
There’s a tradition in Christianity of presenting Jesus and the New Testament as more flexible, forgiving, compassionate, peaceful than the Old Testament/Judaism. I have no way to judge how much truth there is in that claim. The Old Testament has many gradients, layers and attitudes, and, according to modern interpretation, several different sources.
The character of God as presented in the Old Testament is very complicated and problematic, especially in the New Testament. There were Jewish interpreters who said that the story of Job is a fable that never really happened but is used to illustrate a point.
“I’ll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn’t infallible?”
Not to the best of my knowledge. I think he tells Job that he (God) is beyond Job’s understanding.
————-
“to be completely fair, it’s not only Christians, but all Abrahamic religions that consider themselves the only and ones that will be saved.
If by saved you are referring to some kind of afterlife, my understanding is that Judaism establishes no belief in an afterlife. On an episode of Northern Exposure, a priest asked Joel how the Jews tolerate in life the idea of absolute void after death, and he said he avoided thinking about it.”
I’m a secular Jew, so I can’t say anything for certain.
To the best of my knowledge the idea of the afterlife does exist in Judaism, although I don’t think it is mentioned in the Old Testaments. It is not as important as it is in Christianity.
In any case, Judaism does not really have the concept of salvation. It does not believe that you have to be Jewish in order to be rightuous. Judaism does not seek to convert non-Jews. According to Judaism non-Jews are only required to follow the 7 commandments knows as the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah. I think these are the 7 of the tenth commandments except: you shall have no God but me; you shall make no idol; keep the Sabbath.
“To play devil’s advocate (and the identity of the “devil” I’m defending here makes that a bit ironic), I don’t think all Christians are agreed on what exactly happens to those who don’t get into heaven. Whether it’s hëll by default, or whether it’s something like limbo or purgatory, or whether it’s something entirely different that isn’t actually as excruciating as eternal torment but rather just being separated from God. So if you hear somebody saying they think only people like them will get into heaven, they may not necessarily be saying that people unlike them will all go to hëll.
Dante was Catholic, which follows a strict adherence to canon, and at least for his time rewards and punishment were not so much issued in the afterlife as the dead continued to behave as they did in life. All of the tortures in the Inferno? Those were meant to represent what we who are guilty do to ourselves while we are alive. There’s nothing stopping the dámņëd from going purgatory to transform their behavior if they choose. There are simply people who are relentless in their behavior.”
To the best of my knowledge based on my very limited studies on the subject and having read a while back the first 100 cantos of Dante’s Divine Commedy (not as funny as I expected), according to medieval Christian theology the dámņëd cannot decide to go from hëll to purgatory. Hëll and purgatory are places of punishment. Dante described the pubishments as fitting the crimes of the sinners in life. There’s a place in Dante’s hëll dedicated to non-Christians who were nevertheless rightuous.
Mike: It is true that many – not all, I’m sure – of Bin Laden’s admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom. That doesn’t change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us. Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn’t suggest we’re anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way.
>It’s troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.
Not just a word. A Canadian company got nailed for millions because of one extra comma in a contract which [as written, instead of as intended to read] allowed the people they contracted with to break the contract years early and renegotiate at far more advantageous terms.
Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and …
Rob Brown – There is, however, one major difference between myself and Falwell:
This was the point I was really trying to get to, but never actually arrived at.
It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?
If not, there can be no argument for any kind of euthanasia. It would also seem to preclude any kind of military action that was not a cut and dried self defense action.
I’m not for the death penalty but I think there is a lot of difference, just as kidnapping a person is wrong but taking a kidnapper and forcing them to live in a prison is not.
“It is true that many – not all, I’m sure – of Bin Laden’s admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom.”
The ideology of Bin-Laden’s followers views martyrdom as desireable. What they feel deep in their heart when someone dies is an open question. Regardless, the kind of martyrdom they prefer is the kind where they die killing others, and not when they are killed by their enemies. Althugh that too is martyrdom (in Arabic: Shuhada — martyer-Shahid).
“That doesn’t change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us.”
Once you killed him, the fact that you also celebrated his death is the least of your or their problem. They already hate you and want vengeance.
Only recently the US killed an Al-Quaida guy in Afghanistan, and a few days later the Brigades of the Shahid X were making threats of revenge.
It is also likely that they assume you are celebrating the death regardless of what you actually do, since they celebrate deaths of their enemies.
However, celebrating someone’s death in a public way is, in my opinion, in bad taste. So, aside from a quiet good riddance I would keep the chapagne in the fridge.
Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn’t suggest we’re anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way.”
“And just hope whoever follows him isn’t worse.”
While I can agree with that on principle, it’s a different era now than when Falwell first came on the scene. Also, anyone who tries to fill the void he left(don’t make a fat joke, don’t make a fat joke…) will be seen by many as trying to be another Falwell. I really think it’ll be a long time before we see another of his ilk rise the way he did.
The whole “Thou shalt not kill” thing always bothered me. Most people take it to mean kill PEOPLE, but word guy that I am, I’d point out it doesn’t SAY people. So, you can’t kill animals for food. I’m not going to get into the whole vegetation-as-food thing in case anyone’s eating while reading this. Thou shall not commit murder–now THAT makes sense. Except for the whole eye for eye bit, and God showing people how to win wars and things.
” practically having the Grim Reaper as a coworker.”
Rex, I read that, and an entire comedy sketch burst into my head, where the Reaper never refills the coffee pot, always moans and complains and is a general know it all who whines a lot. Come to think of it, I think I work with Death now.
Quite a few of Bin Laden’s followers aren’t in much of a hurry to be martyred. Perhaps they aren’t true believers, or perhaps they prefer to live on as strategists for the present. Other than that, I have no disagreement with Micha. We can’t, won’t and shouldn’t make friends with these people, but there are some provocations we would be wise to avoid.
Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and …
I really have to recommend again a book I mentioned long ago in another thread, Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Great book that just gets into the hows and whys without attacking anybody, their faith or their lack of same.
Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
“Our” side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we’d most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.
Certainly, you’re not suggesting you don’t support our troops! (gasp!)
PAD: Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one’s beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.
I just thought it interesting that you’d start by saying “the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, ‘Oh well.'”, make an “exception” (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn’t be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren’t *someone*.
Granted, I don’t always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.
[Fixing italic tags since I don’t want to mis-represent anyone or confuse on who said what.]
PAD: Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one’s beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.
I just thought it interesting that you’d start by saying “the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, ‘Oh well.'”, make an “exception” (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn’t be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren’t *someone*.
Granted, I don’t always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 17, 2007 12:56 PM
“Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
“Our” side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we’d most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.
Certainly, you’re not suggesting you don’t support our troops! (gasp”
Yes and no.
Yes, westerners also admire self sacrifice.
No. There is a specific rhetoric among radical Islamists stating literally that the cowardly westerners love life hile the Islamists love death.
Presumably they should be happy at the opportunity to die, and their families should rejoice and encourage others to do the same. While westerners feel sad for the death while admiring the sacrifice.
Again, we can’t be certain if the followers and relations of a shahid are really not sad for his death or is it that just the facade that is expected of them.
I suggest that anyone who is an absolutist on the issue of “they are suicide bombers, and they are not; They celebrate suicide bombing, and we do not” should research Colin P. Kelly, Jr., one of the first acclaimed American war heroes of World War II. He was widely hailed for flying his disabled B-17 into the Japanese battleship “Haruna.” He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for this heroic deed. As it turned out, the report was mistaken: after bombing the aircraft carrier “Ashigara” his plane was critically damaged by a Mitsubishi Zero-sen. After piloting his B-17 until all of his crew had bailed out, he ran out of time, and the craft exploded in the air, killing him – an act that was at least as heroic as the mistaken account. So, although he was definitely not a suicide bomber, the supposed act met with huge acclamation here in the United States. Demonizing the enemy until he cannot be recognized as our species makes it very difficult to deal with or predict.
Jeffrey, there’s an obvious flaw in your story, inaccurate report notwithstanding…today’s suicide bombers are healthy, whole, hale individuals that are targeting civilians. The pilot that steers his critically damaged aircraft into an enemey military target is probably not going to make it back to base, anyway, nor is his plane. He knows or thinks his own death…already risked and currently in a combat situation…is imminent, so he may as well carry out his mission…inflict damage/casualties to the enemy…if he can.
Comparing the acts of a soldier to those of a terrorist in this case are totally inappropriate. There’s simply no similarity at all between the two, other than that they both involve an individual willing to immediately end his life in an effort to kill someone else. But that’s like saying both Earth and Mars are planets. Factually true, but it doesn’t even begin to explain the differences that exist between the two.
To the best of my knowledge based on my very limited studies on the subject and having read a while back the first 100 cantos of Dante’s Divine Commedy (not as funny as I expected), according to medieval Christian theology the dámņëd cannot decide to go from hëll to purgatory. Hëll and purgatory are places of punishment. Dante described the pubishments as fitting the crimes of the sinners in life. There’s a place in Dante’s hëll dedicated to non-Christians who were nevertheless rightuous.
The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy.
As far as Dante explicitly said God would forgive Satan immediately if he were truly contrite, there was no divine punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. The simple definition/purpose of hëll is to accept those who are denied the ecstacy of paradise, and the environments are established by the residents. As far as the souls of the dámņëd are monstrous, the severer neighborhoods in hëll are simply their natural environment.
Dante kept emphasizing how the glutenous, the lustful, the wrathful did not relent in indulging in their appetites, how the contagious, incendiary nature of theft fed the thievish fire, how the fortune-tellers’ heads twisted (their tears streaming into their own áššëš) was a direct result of their intolerance of uncertainty, how the lack of identity of the fraudulent fed their own polymorphism — he presented the dámņëd suffering more from their own compulsive behavior than the disapproval of some divine parole arbiter. Heaven and hëll just doesn’t seem like the life and death issue Dante’s audience took it as.
When (if) [bin Laden] is caught or obliterated I’ll be very glad BUT it’s a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure – I think they’re (mostly) wrong, but they’re out there.
The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
Mike: It is true that many – not all, I’m sure – of Bin Laden’s admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom. That doesn’t change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us.
As far as the reservations against celebrating the death of Falwell explored here have nothing to do with decreasing the prospect of terrorist retaliation from offended Christians, your qualification still does not apply.
Except for the whole eye for eye bit…
Was that not Hammurabi?
“Our” side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we’d most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.
Certainly, you’re not suggesting you don’t support our troops! (gasp!)
Our troops are not recruited as martyrs, as suicide bombers are. Our troops are not samurai who live for the prospect of sacrificing their lives in fidelity to a holy trust. The military as I knew it probably would have screened people like that out as too Holden-Caulfieldish, since it enjoyed the prestige of its members having a death-rate lower than the corresponding demographic in the civilian world.
“The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy.”
You are correct on both counts. I was confused. only read 100 pages. However, I believe you are giving Dante a modern interpretation that does not fit the perception of 13th century catholics of heaven and hëll. There certainly is a creative vale in such an interprtation, if you want to pursue it. But if you are reading it as a historical text you have to understand how Dante and his audiences understood it. If you could proove that your interpretation corresponds to the perceptions of 13th century people, that would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history. I know of two cases in which historians were able to show that other historians were reading texts incorrectly, and attributing to medievals concepts that were not their own. But it requires hard work to acheive something like that.
“Heaven and hëll just doesn’t seem like the life and death issue Dante’s audience took it as.”
Although I was told that some of Dante’s contemporaries thought he actually has seen hëll, I think we can assume that the hëll he was describing is based on the ideas common in his time + his own literary talent.
Bobb Alfred: No, Colin Kelly wasn’t a suicide bomber – but when Americans thought he was, they thought that was a great thing. That’s the only point of that story. The real events of his death are every bit as heroic as any of the false stories. This isn’t about him, but the reaction of an inflamed and enraged populace shortly after Pearl Harbor. Given enough rage at the enemy, a wide range of actions contrary to our self image may be applauded.
As far as Dante explicitly said God would forgive Satan immediately if he were truly contrite, there was no divine punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
However, I believe you are giving Dante a modern interpretation that does not fit the perception of 13th century catholics of heaven and hëll. There certainly is a creative vale in such an interprtation, if you want to pursue it. But if you are reading it as a historical text you have to understand how Dante and his audiences understood it. If you could proove that your interpretation corresponds to the perceptions of 13th century people, that would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history. I know of two cases in which historians were able to show that other historians were reading texts incorrectly, and attributing to medievals concepts that were not their own. But it requires hard work to acheive something like that.
Heaven & Hëll in the Afterlife: Roman Catholic and Protestant Understanding:
…nowhere in the original language of the Bible does the Calvinistic idea occur of a place of “hellfire” torment, created especially by God so He can punish those he judges for eternity. Why would a God who loves us unconditionally torment us for eternity, because of an equally unbiblical notion of Divine Justice? In fact nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that it is God that punishes the sinners. If you put your hand in the fireplace, is it the fire’s intention to punish you? Or is the torment you experience caused by your own foolish action? It is merely the nature of the fire to burn your unprotected skin.
Calvin came 200 years after Dante. If one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.
I suggest that anyone who is an absolutist on the issue of “they are suicide bombers, and they are not; They celebrate suicide bombing, and we do not” should research Colin P. Kelly, Jr., one of the first acclaimed American war heroes of World War II. He was widely hailed for flying his disabled B-17 into the Japanese battleship “Haruna.”
You have to go back 60 years for an example of a American who did not lose his resolve to fight in the face of doom to establish a relationship between Americans and those who actively recruit martyrs. Your example is too obscure to even qualify as a “Where’s Waldo?” puzzle.
Jeffrey, you’ve been quiet until you started very recently to jump at every prospect of hypocrisy. Have you noticed some kind of dramatic upsurge in hypocrisy in Peter’s comments sections or are you going for some kind of dramatic effect, like a staggering James Brown inciting his audience with his renewed vitality?
Mike: I really don’t care that you consider Colin Kelly obscure. I don’t find him so. My use of his example is just to put the lie to the idea that Americans don’t have it in them to applaud suicide bombing. It’s beyond question that some here do, and that some are perfectly willing to commit homicide bombings, if not the suicide variety. As to your perception that I am driven to attack whatever I think hypocritical, and that is my primary focus here, consider my several comments about your posts: I didn’t call you a hypocrite – rather, I thought your posts were bizarre and incomprehensible. That’s a different thing entirely.
I am suspicious of your belief that there was no widespread 13th Century Catholic belief that God punished sinners with Hëll, but will need to look into it further. Your citation of a retired (modern) seminary dean’s view of the matter is just that: the view of a 20th Century theologian – perhaps accurate as to 13th Century mores, or perhaps a summation of his own modern understanding, seven centuries later. I’ll see what I can find about the views of the church and the public at the time. My current understanding is that a fear of condemnation to Hëll was quite widespread, and the perceived remedy was obedience to God. The concept of Satan, who had lost his war with an omnipotent God, being able to snatch souls against God’s will is quite a difficult one to grasp!
Mike, you’re dabbling in theology! How nice.
However, the theologian you quote states himself that he is trying to replace the ‘incorrect’ concept of hëll, that has been held by Catholics since medieval times, and later by Protestant, with a ‘correct’ concept of hëll based on returning to the Bible and Early Chruch writings.
He begins his article by saying:
“The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hëll, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hëll are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.”
“This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).”
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.”
It is an nice theology. Better or not than the theology held by the Catholics or protestants, I do not know. However, the queston we were dealing with is not what is the ‘correct’ theology, but rather what medieval people like Dante believed about Hëll? Unless you wish to content that Dante diviated from the theology of his time and held a view similar to the theologian you quoted? That would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the Catholic encyclopedia’s article about Hëll.
“Hëll (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hëll:
hëll in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the dámņëd, be they demons or men;
the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.”
And here is a link to James Joyce’s A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man (I haven’t read Ulysses); the part in which he listens to a priest lecture about hëll. I remember it as very vivid.
And here is the link to wikipedia:
“The nature of hëll and its punishment is a subject of debate between various denominations. Hëll is however generally held to be irrevocable and eternal. Some Christians believe that hëll is a physical place. Some believe that, while hëll is real, it is a state, rather than a place, of separation from God. Others hold that hëll is a metaphor for a self-imposed mental separation from God. Some view hëll as a place of punishment by God while others see it more in terms of self-exclusion from God. Some hold that there are physical torments in hëll, principally fire. Some believe that Hëll is nothing more than a vice that has been created through literature and other non-Biblical sources in order to “win” people to Christianity and that it has little to no Biblical support. Hëll has historically played a large part in post-Constantinian Western culture, especially during the Middle Ages, and continues to significantly influence Western language, custom, usage, literature and iconography.”
Micha: Thank you for providing that fairly comprehensive reference.
Even if we could ascertain the official theology of a particular time, I think it would be difficult to know how well that had penetrated common thought.
Jeffrey, there is a tendancy to go to one of two extremes. Either to assume that suicide bombers are completely alien, or to assume that they are completely like us and fully understandable.
The truth is in the middle as usual. The emotions that motivate suicide bombers are the same as ours, but they are currently living in a culture that is different in certain respects than western culture, and which might seem strange to us, although not incomprehensible.
In any case, Western culture today does not object so much to the idea of self sacrifice. The three aspects of suicide bombings that are hard to deal with are the objective: the deliberate harming and terrorizing civilians who are living their daily lives; the method: sacrificing people as a method — western armies usually don’t send their soldiers on suicide missions as a common strategy but only in extreme circumstances, but in general seek to keep the soldiers alive as much as possible; and some of the rhetoric involved in the indoctrination of suicide bombers.
Mike: I really don’t care that you consider Colin Kelly obscure. I don’t find him so. My use of his example is just to put the lie to the idea that Americans don’t have it in them to applaud suicide bombing.
Your example cites so few surviving celebrants as to constitute an aberration.
Not that I disagree Americans don’t have it in them to applaud suicide bombing — you simply argue as to discredit the notion yourself.
It’s beyond question that some here do, and that some are perfectly willing to commit homicide bombings, if not the suicide variety.
???
Please remind me who here applauds suicide bombing and is perfectly willing to commit homicide and suicide bombings themselves.
Jeffrey, you’ve been quiet until you started very recently to jump at every prospect of hypocrisy. Have you noticed some kind of dramatic upsurge in hypocrisy in Peter’s comments sections or are you going for some kind of dramatic effect, like a staggering James Brown inciting his audience with his renewed vitality?
As to your perception that I am driven to attack whatever I think hypocritical, and that is my primary focus here, consider my several comments about your posts: I didn’t call you a hypocrite – rather, I thought your posts were bizarre and incomprehensible. That’s a different thing entirely.
Hypocrisy is bad. Why wouldn’t you address what you think hypocritical? I’m just wondering if why you’ve been quiet until now has been that this forum has encountered some kind of steep incline in hypocrisy as to warrant your vigorous reengagement.
I am suspicious of your belief that there was no widespread 13th Century Catholic belief that God punished sinners with Hëll…
Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?
…but will need to look into it further. Your citation of a retired (modern) seminary dean’s view of the matter is just that: the view of a 20th Century theologian – perhaps accurate as to 13th Century mores, or perhaps a summation of his own modern understanding, seven centuries later. I’ll see what I can find about the views of the church and the public at the time. My current understanding is that a fear of condemnation to Hëll was quite widespread, and the perceived remedy was obedience to God. The concept of Satan, who had lost his war with an omnipotent God, being able to snatch souls against God’s will is quite a difficult one to grasp!
That seems to apply as “I see nothing wrong with what you say, but I know it’s wrong anyway.” What virtue does that nurture?
…the theologian you quote states himself that he is trying to replace the ‘incorrect’ concept of hëll, that has been held by Catholics since medieval times, and later by Protestant, with a ‘correct’ concept of hëll based on returning to the Bible and Early Chruch writings.
He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
…but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.
In listing portrayals of hëll alien to early Christian thought, he does not say the middle ages nurtured juridical concepts of hëll any more than he says the middle ages nurtured enlightenment rationalizations of hëll.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the Catholic encyclopedia’s article about Hëll.
I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.
And here is a link to James Joyce’s A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man (I haven’t read Ulysses); the part in which he listens to a priest lecture about hëll. I remember it as very vivid.
James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 08:25 AM
“Micha: Thank you for providing that fairly comprehensive reference.”
I am not satisfied with it. I’ve wasted to much time trying to find some article or reference that deal specifically with medieval concepts of hëll. I’m afraid this is one of these cases that you have to actually go to the library and look in the dictionary of the middle ages, which I’m not going to do.
“Even if we could ascertain the official theology of a particular time, I think it would be difficult to know how well that had penetrated common thought.”
It is true that it is harder to know what common people believed, since they didn’t write. There are however many books about popular beliefs. A historian called Carlo Ginzburg wrote a book about popular heretic beliefs. I don’t remember the name. It’s very famous. He used the accounts of the interrogations of the inquisition a a source.
The art on European cathedrals gives you an indication of the image of hëll offered to the general public by the church.
Dante wrote in Italian, the language of the people, which is also significant.
The concept of Satan, who had lost his war with an omnipotent God, being able to snatch souls against God’s will is quite a difficult one to grasp!
That was so irrelevant that I overlooked it in quoting you. I never said this, and Dante opened the Divine Comedy as being lost in a wood, not being taken as some kind of hostage.
Mike, I will go one step better than Jeffery and label you hypocritical. For all the obscure references you spout out…I still have no idea which Campbell said you can’t create without breaking some established paradigm, and I don’t really care to google something like that…for you to try and call another poster on using the same tactic is the very definition of hypocritical.
And Jeffrey…trying to characterize the dying soldier attempting to kill one more enemy as a suicide bomber is just plain silly. It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country. Sure, we send out combat medics, and we do everything we can to save our wounded (so they can fight another day if they are still able), but there’s a long-standing heroic tradition of the warrior that fights on in the face of certain death, or fights on despite impossible odds…the suicide mission.
Today’s terrorist bombers are not on a suicide mission. They ARE the suicide mission. They aren’t going on a mission to capture a strategic point, or disable a war vessel, or destroy a key bridge…the whole point of the mission is for them to die killing as many civilians as possible. There’s a fundamental difference between Americans cheering the valiant death of a soldier…already fatally wounded…pressing on in an attempt to continue his mission, which has a military objective and doesn’t target civilians. Look at the key events of that story…he pressed on flying his aircraft in order to damage or destroy a Japanese battlesehip. Do you really think that America would have cheered him had he been reported as staving off death so he could fly his crippled bomber into a group of Japanese school children?
Yes, I know the Japanese were pretty vilified at the time, so undoubtedly some would have in fact cheered such a target, but most would have looked on in horror and commented on the innocent casualties of war.
America does noy cheer the suicide bomber as it’s known today. Calling actions like those attributed to Kelly Jr. the same thing as what occurs today is an insult to the sacrifice every soldier that’s given or risked his life in combat has made.
Mike: “I never said this” – very true. I did, and it is very encouraging that you can recognize the difference. It seems to me that giving an example of something happening is not “arguing to discredit the notion (myself).” Much better would be to say you don’t think I have substantiated my claim – that would be much harder to disprove. As for who here (America) applauds homicide bombings, Timothy McVeigh and those who supported him come to mind. If you thought I meant “PeterDavid.net” by “here,” the fault is mine for being unclear. I won’t argue that applauding homicide bombings is healthy or righteous – merely that it occurs, here and elsewhere. As far as the matter of me finding and making a crusade against increasing hypocrisy on this board – Not at all: I sometimes go extended periods without looking at the site. For whatever reason it may be (I don’t have a theory to explain it) I may decide to visit, and when I do some topic may seem interesting. As the site is set up, I first see PAD’s initial post. If it is interesting or provocative I will read the responses. If any of these seem mistaken or unfair, and I feel like it, I will wade in and say whatever seems right. It might seem to be wasted effort, because I seldom change any minds here, and also because I know going in that some aspects of PAD’s style of expressing himself – either his sense of humor or his point of view differing from my own – tend to set me off in a way most here are not. This was much more of a problem in the past than it is now, and I’m not planning to desert the site (although several would encourage it, I’m sure).
Micha: You are certainly correct that the sources you provided don’t give a final answer: I just appreciated your effort to provide what information you could. The distinctions you provide between El Qaida-style terrorism and the American commonplace are entirely correct, and I don’t want to argue otherwise. You provide two extreme views of the distinction, which I think you will agree are both mistaken. Thinking there is no distinction between our methods is foolishly naive – definitely too self-despising. Thinking the other is completely alien without exception makes it more difficult to comprehend and deal with its tactics.
Bobb Alfred: I will quibble with you about the soldier’s first duty being to die for his country. The first duty is to achieve the objective given him – seizure of territory, destruction of materiel, killing, disabling or capturing enemy troops, and that sort of thing. The death of an American soldier in attempting these goals is a side effect, rather than a goal. Any commander who instructed his soldiers to die as a thing in itself – “You, staff sergeant, kneel in the corner and disembowel yourself” – would be in grave violation of the laws of war, U.S. and international law. You believe that the vast majority of the American public – even during WWII – would have looked on in horror at the loss of innocent lives. As it turns out, they really weren’t all that upset at that sort of thing at the time. Consider the civilian casualties in Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many other places. At the time, there was significant desire for revenge against the aggressor nations. Now, many (definitely myself) justify or explain the firebombing and nuclear obliteration of cities primarily populated with civilians with military necessity. Our popular culture at the time certainly celebrated slaughter – in pulp fiction, war movies, news reports and comic books. (take a look at the joy of the Human Torch, Toro, Captain America and Bucky, just to mention Timely’s contributions to world art.)
We are much better than the bad guys, but not entirely alien to them.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
Below are a few links to sections of the Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologia, concerning hëll.
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
Below are a few links to sections of the Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologia, concerning hëll.
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
I recommend going to the catholic encyclopedia and typing Thomas Aquinas and hëll. You’lee get refered to section of the Summa Theologica in translation refering to hëll.
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Our popular culture at the time certainly celebrated slaughter – in pulp fiction, war movies, news reports and comic books. (take a look at the joy of the Human Torch, Toro, Captain America and Bucky, just to mention Timely’s contributions to world art.)
I don’t recall any of those characters celebrating the slaughter of civilians. Soldiers and politicians, yes.
Witness how quickly the American public came to see the Japanese and Germans in a sympathetic light once the hostilities were finished, airdropping food to Germans trapped by the Berlin blockade and buying Japanese goods and movies.
Jeffrey, you’re missing the point by getting bogged down in details. I didn’t say, specifically, that a soldiers goal is to die, as you rightly point out that would be of little relative use. However, in achieving his goals/mission, it is the soldiers duty to risk their life…indeed, as if often the case, to lose their life…in the pursuit of their objectives. In few other occupations is it considered one of your job requirements to be ready and willing to risk your life in order to obtain an objective.
Consider the D-Day beach storming. Military command knew darn well that casualties would be high that day. Is that a side effect? I suppose so, considering that sending American GIs to their death was not the objective of the mission. But it was expected of each and every man that set boots on those beaches that they were expected to give their lives in an effort to secure the beachheads. That’s what I mean by a soldier’s duty…to give their lives so that others…be it soldier or civilian…don’t have to.
As for the civilian, collateral damage caused by large-scale bombing raids…I’ve already admitted that there were some…there always will be some…that so vilify the enemy that it includes every last man, woman, and child. Thankfully, in America, those folks are rare. In addition, the technology of the day prevented the kind of precision strikes that we see today, where a cruise missile can fly in through a window of a specific building containing just enough charge to destroy the target in the middle of a residential area, inflicting no more harm to nearby buildings than the dust from the target. They were dropping 800 pound cases of iron from 15000 feet…inaccuracy was unavoidable, acceptable, and regretable. But like those deaths on the beaches of Normandy and elsewhere, a necessary cost to waging war.
It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country.
I’d disagree that a soldier’s first duty is to die for his country. You can die in combat and do exactly zip for your side or your country.
Today’s terrorist bombers are not on a suicide mission. They ARE the suicide mission.
There’s also a far greater difference between a soldier who gets into a situation where he’s sure he’s going to die and decides to take as many of his opposition out as he can in his believed final act and someone who sets out from second one to die. Most soldiers don’t set out with the intent to die. They want to come back alive from the field. Soldiers that go into combat wanting to die are almost universally seen as unstable and pulled from duty as a risk to themselves and others. Even “suicide missions” are often a misnomer. They’re extremely high risk, but the people involved don’t go into them trying to get killed by the end of it.
A suicide bomber intends to die as their final act of their mission. There’s no attempt to find the best way to maximize damage to the enemy/target while still living to fight another day.
A soldier looks for that chance to fight another day. A suicide bomber looks to have no other days.
There’s absolutely no comparison at all between the two.
Bobb Alfred: “It’s a sodlier’s (sic) first duty to die for his country….the suicide mission.”
Bobb Alfred (different post) “I didn’t say, specifically, that a soldier’s goal is to die.”
Jeffrey Frawley (Me, specifically, right now): No, you said his first duty was to die, and that we have a tradition of suicide missions. I’ll agree that you didn’t say, specifically that a soldier’s goal is to die. You used different words.
Jerry Chandler is right that suicide bombing is not an established American tradition. There are anomalies, but he is correct except for such rarities. I won’t dispute his point. Deranged criminality and state policy have serious differences.
Wow, Jeffrey, are you trying to be obstinate, or just really aggressive in trying to win a pointless point. There are 52 words contained in that eliipses, and you’ve totally lost my contextual meaning. Contained in those 52 words is the idea that we (America) routinely send combat medics into the field along with our sodliers in an attempt to recover the wounded. My later comment on the suicide mission is in reference to a long-standing tradition of the heroic sacrifice of the doomer warrior.. Note the very deliberate omission of a “we” or “American” in that context. As the recent film 300 shows, the idea of a few or single brave soul facing impossible odds, certain death, in order to protect the greater good or win a war, existed long, long before American troops even existed. To jump from my contention that a soldiers’ (thanks for pointing out my grammatical error…in a high school English class, I’d humbly accept my B+ for that…on a web page, it just makes you look like you’re being an ášš on purpose) first duty is to die for his country to the idea that America has a tradition suicide missions requires a leap beyond Olympian level. More than that, it ignores the very examples I gave that suggest that America does not, in fact, have a tradition of suicide missions, but merely continues to recognize the historical and long-standing ideal of the heroic sacrifice by the group or individual.
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, at least make them resemble what I actually posted.
I’ve been just skimming and lurking for the last several days because I’ve been busy at work. But a recent uptick in a certain kind of behavior here has prompted me to steal a few minutes away from my hefty workload to say something.
I doubt Jeffrey Frawley and his ilk will heed this but it bears saying nevertheless: this is a blog, not a court of law or a high school debate team. Communication is much easier when you make a good-faith attempt to understand what other posters meant, rather than attempt to impose meaning on their posts in order to score some imaginary “points.” And yes, in some cases, people will phrase their thoughts with less than perfect precision. But I fail to understand why some of you, like Jeffrey Frawley, believe that is an opportunity to do nothing but shriek “no you phrased it this way so this is what you meant so I win I WIN I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!“
I mean, seriously, what have you won? Bragging rights? Oh, yeah, that’ll go far. Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry. And make sure to tell your boss as well. I’m sure it’ll earn you a promotion. Oh, and mention it to your friends and family at a party. I’m sure their eyes won’t glaze over as you regale them with your blogging prowess.
I’m not saying we all need to agree. No, I think honest disagreement is healthy. But there’s nothing honest about trying to trip someone up with minutae.
I know I’m probably wasting my breath. But I thought I’d give it a shot.
Back to work.
Bill Myers: Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry.
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
“It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country” (no ellipsis, and no spellcheck) is what Bobb Alfred said. I don’t know why he said it. I don’t know what he really meant to say. Beyond that, I don’t think he’d be a particularly good soldier. I do know I wouldn’t want to serve under him.
Mike, I will go one step better than Jeffery and label you hypocritical. For all the obscure references you spout out…I still have no idea which Campbell said you can’t create without breaking some established paradigm, and I don’t really care to google something like that…for you to try and call another poster on using the same tactic is the very definition of hypocritical.
How many Campbells do you know of who would have said that every act of creation is an act of destruction? And are you calling me hypocritical arbitrarily, Counselor or is there a selective application of principle by me you have in mind?
It seems to me that giving an example of something happening is not “arguing to discredit the notion (myself).” Much better would be to say you don’t think I have substantiated my claim – that would be much harder to disprove.
When your challenge is based on a 60 year-old incident, the challenge becomes far-fetched for a modern application.
And I didn’t say you argued to discredit. Are you so fragile you need to attribute a false quote to me?
As for who here (America) applauds homicide bombings, Timothy McVeigh and those who supported him come to mind. If you thought I meant “PeterDavid.net” by “here,” the fault is mine for being unclear.
As far as America applauding Timothy McVeigh goes — Timothy McVeigh bombed anonymously, and America prosecuted and executed him when they discovered him.
Not at all: I sometimes go extended periods without looking at the site. For whatever reason it may be (I don’t have a theory to explain it) I may decide to visit, and when I do some topic may seem interesting.
I have a theory to explain it: you are like James Brown, staggering as you sacrifice your very life-force in dedication, then as one of your minions holds your cape to your back, you theatrically demonstrate new vigor to the roar of your audience.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Your session has timed out. Click here to continue.”
You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
As far as Dante said that God would forgive Satan, or maybe the quote was even forgive anyone, he believed their was no punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. The article cited Calvin as the source for the belief in a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
You haven’t presented any research, and I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
Dante simply cites no divine agenda in establishing such punishment.
You almost make it sound like Dante has Jesus pummeling the guilty with their own hands and asking them why they keep hitting themselves. It simply makes more sense to accept the portrayal of the dámņëd punishing themselves, and accepting the tears of the Baby Jesus as authentic, so to speak. Just because they hadn’t invented the printing press yet, that doesn’t mean the medievals should be denied credit for any brains.
You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions.
As far as Dante said God does not withhold forgiveness, that’s all the evidence I need.
He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
Sure he does…
In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.
“Western thought” and “medieval thought” are not terms that can be used interchangeably.
When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines.
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
As far as “Western thought” and “medieval thought” are not terms that can be used interchangeably, your quotes do not demonstrate a medieval belief in a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. Yes, the article rejects the portrayal of hëll as serving a divine agenda of punishment — a portrayal which the Inferno does not incorporate.
I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
I just said I took Dante for what he said.
I never denied Dante was controversial, if that’s what you’re saying. He presented the Divine Comedy in Italian and shocked the public with its vulgarity — Dante was the punk rock of his time.
Even so, punk rock does not present environments unknown to convention.
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
I should hope the responsibility of proving I’m wrong should go to the person challenging me — we have the option of not testifying against ourselves in America. And I made no claim of Dante’s influence other than that I read him.
Like the song says: Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong.
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian….
I recommend going to the catholic encyclopedia and typing Thomas Aquinas and hëll. You’lee get refered to section of the Summa Theologica in translation refering to hëll.
As we in America enjoy the option of not testifying against ourselves: feel free to share a relevant Aquinas quote anytime it suits you.
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one.
As much as you may wish otherwise, I never said I was.
• 
Sean Martin: Sympathy for those who grieve, hmm, perhaps. But for the departed, if they were someone I disliked as much as Falwell? Glad to see ’em gone. Wish it had been sooner.
Jerry Chandler: …And I will not for one moment mourn his passing. However, there is a difference between that and publicly stating great joy and enjoyment in the man’s death. …
… For that I will not express joy or glee in his passing or his possible fate in the afterlife.
Yes, Jerry, I am glad he is gone. Yes, I wish he had been removed from the world’s stage earlier so that he would have done less damage. Yes, I disliked the man.
But note that I didn’t use stronger terms like hated or detested. And I certainly never said that I was taking “great joy and enjoyment”, or “expressing glee”.
I disliked him for a variety of reasons. I’m glad he’s gone. And (the main point I was making) I won’t change the opinion I express about him just because he is dead.
As for my feelings about him dropping me somehow to his level, I never wanted to tell him how to live his life. I just want him not to tell me how to live mine. He dislikes me because of what I AM. I dislike him because of what he wants to do to me.
To me, that is a VAST difference.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM
The first sentence says it is unwise to second-guess God’s will. I took this entire paragraph to mean that it was not only impossible to know the mind of God, but also that we shouldn’t question God’s decisions, since that is what “second-guessing” means.
Fair enough. I did indeed misuse the term “second-guessing.” As I feared, it was not your interpretation that was to blame. I did a poor job of expressing myself. It was therefore really šhìŧŧÿ of me to cast aspersions on your reading skills, and again I profusely apologize.
It’s like this: I’d never tell anyone to “submit to God’s will” or advise them not to “question God’s will” because I don’t believe any of us can know His will. For that reason, I would instead advise people not to claim that they know who will or will not be dámņëd (assuming, again, that dámņáŧìøņ is one of the options in the afterlife, and I don’t know that it is). I believe it was Susan B. Anthony who observed how conveniently those who claim to know the will of God interpret that will in a way that is consistent with their personal biases. I believe Jerry Falwell did so. I also believe that those who declare that Falwell is in for a surprise in the afterlife are doing the same thing. In other words: if one doesn’t want to be like Falwell, then don’t be cheering for him to Burn, because that was Falwell’s shtick.
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 17, 2007 12:53 AM
I also feel that way about all the Christians who are pro-death penalty, btw. They’re in favor of criminals being killed and yet they claim to hold the Bible sacred, despite the Bible saying it is unacceptable to kill? Pick one or the other, people. You can’t have both.
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.” This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe “you shall not murder” is a more accurate translation for that reason.
Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2007 10:07 PM
That was Job’s challenge to God, was it not? And God never said Job was wrong — He said Job was as right as any of the men among him but still invoked His privilege as God to do as He pleased.
I had forgotten he’d said anything like that, Mike. If so, it kind of sticks in my craw since it seems very much like saying “might makes right.”
Also, I’ve heard many adjectives like “infallible” used to describe God, the belief among those who describe him as such being that because of his infallibility, he knows best and we should do what he says. It’s been a very long time since I read Job, so I’ll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn’t infallible?
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 16, 2007 08:36 PM
I’ve never understood the indignant have-some-respect-for-the-dead admonishment. As corpses (as in life) people should get the level of respect they earn and have shown to others.
It’s the same principle as not kicking somebody when they’re down, I think.
Nobody’s telling you what to think about him, certainly nobody’s suggesting you sing the man’s praises. They just feel that there’s something wrong with gloating about the death of a human being, whatever kind of person they were. That being said, I looked at your earlier posts and you don’t appear to be doing that. There’s nothing wrong with simply saying “Good, he’s dead,” as far as I’m concerned. (Long as you’re not, you know, at his funeral when you say it or anything…)
> “I therefore believe that that created an environment which possibly has caused God to lift the veil of protection which has allowed no one to attack America on our soil since 1812.”
I’m sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in ’41?
>… that the way to combat demagougery is not with more demagougery, since the dictators are better at it than you are; instead, you fight them by making them look ridiculous, so it’s harder for people to take them seriously.
I guess Mack Reynolds agrees, because he had one Section G story where its operatives topple a planetary government by subjecting it to open ridicule.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.” This actually makes more sense in the context of other portions of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy where God is said to have allowed the Israelites to wage war and to have given them instructions on warfare. Many biblical scholars believe “you shall not murder” is a more accurate translation for that reason.
I see. Oy. It’s troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.
The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn’t seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as “blood and guts” in one “Law & Order” episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?
I’m also curious as to whether the death penalty could be considered murder or not, whether you can distinguish between murdering somebody and executing somebody. It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?
I’m sure that comes as a great comfort to the people at Pearl Harbour. I guess they must have been godless heathens to merit that little set-to in ’41?
Yeah, must’ve been. Also, Hawaii is one of the “freak states.” (Simpsons quote there, not Falwell.)
When I read that, I thought “Why did God supposedly start protecting the United States only AFTER the War of 1812? Did it deserve to get attacked back then as well?”
“There are lots of people who would grieve Bin Laden’s passing. So why shouldn’t you be precluded from thinkin much beyone “Oh, well” for him?”
Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
PAD
PAD – I agree that Bin Laden’s passing wouldn’t choke me up at all. When (if) he is caught or obliterated I’ll be very glad BUT it’s a fact that he has millions of admirers who think the same thing about our leaders. Sure – I think they’re (mostly) wrong, but they’re out there. The restraint you recommended at the start of the string is a good idea even in discussing characters far worse than Jerry Falwell, because our joy at their deaths is likely to harden the hearts and wills of their followers. As an example, if during World War II it had been possible to kill Hitler and induce his successor to surrender, it might have been counterproductive to exult before the deal was made. That’s just the most extreme example I can imagine: Anyone should understand why we’d feel justified in our celebration, but it could still do us harm.
Well, I see what you mean, and don’t want to ridicule it. This is much more a tactical than an ethical problem.
As a pre-Law & Order debate, the specifics of the Book of Job are very esoteric to a modern reader and dense to parse through. I just remember God telling everyone to lay off of Job, then giving Job a taste of what it means to create and maintain the universe, and Job bowing to God. It was only pointed out to me that “might makes right” is the only interpretation of God’s response that resembles any sense. If God is infallible (again, Jung pointed out that Satan may have demonstrated that grace is beyond God where such a limitation of God was not demonstrated before — think perhaps of the desolation of the Q-continuum) it’s from His privilege, not His reason.
Dante said the angels sing the laughter of the universe, which is halleluJah, and Chesterton said angels fly because they take themselves lightly. Reason is not all things to any of us — and what is our model of God but (He who is responsible for) that which is all things to us?
The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
Posted by: Bill Myers at May 17, 2007 06:42 AM
Actually, it’s not as cut-and-dried as that. In some English translations of the Bible, the commandment reads “you shall not murder.”
What it says in Hebrew is: ‘lo tirtsach,’ which means: ‘do not commit murder,’ assuming the word in hebrew today has the same meaning as it did back then. The text doesn’t say: ‘lo taharog’ which means ‘do not kill.’
———-
“The thing that occurs to me is that Jesus didn’t seem particularly hawkish. So if a Christian is basing his or her faith primarily on the New Testament instead of the Old (which I recall Lenny Briscoe describing as “blood and guts” in one “Law & Order” episode), should they sometimes be pro-war, or should they be more pacifistic?”
There’s a tradition in Christianity of presenting Jesus and the New Testament as more flexible, forgiving, compassionate, peaceful than the Old Testament/Judaism. I have no way to judge how much truth there is in that claim. The Old Testament has many gradients, layers and attitudes, and, according to modern interpretation, several different sources.
The character of God as presented in the Old Testament is very complicated and problematic, especially in the New Testament. There were Jewish interpreters who said that the story of Job is a fable that never really happened but is used to illustrate a point.
“I’ll have to ask: is there a point in that story where God admits that perhaps he isn’t infallible?”
Not to the best of my knowledge. I think he tells Job that he (God) is beyond Job’s understanding.
————-
“to be completely fair, it’s not only Christians, but all Abrahamic religions that consider themselves the only and ones that will be saved.
If by saved you are referring to some kind of afterlife, my understanding is that Judaism establishes no belief in an afterlife. On an episode of Northern Exposure, a priest asked Joel how the Jews tolerate in life the idea of absolute void after death, and he said he avoided thinking about it.”
I’m a secular Jew, so I can’t say anything for certain.
To the best of my knowledge the idea of the afterlife does exist in Judaism, although I don’t think it is mentioned in the Old Testaments. It is not as important as it is in Christianity.
In any case, Judaism does not really have the concept of salvation. It does not believe that you have to be Jewish in order to be rightuous. Judaism does not seek to convert non-Jews. According to Judaism non-Jews are only required to follow the 7 commandments knows as the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah. I think these are the 7 of the tenth commandments except: you shall have no God but me; you shall make no idol; keep the Sabbath.
“To play devil’s advocate (and the identity of the “devil” I’m defending here makes that a bit ironic), I don’t think all Christians are agreed on what exactly happens to those who don’t get into heaven. Whether it’s hëll by default, or whether it’s something like limbo or purgatory, or whether it’s something entirely different that isn’t actually as excruciating as eternal torment but rather just being separated from God. So if you hear somebody saying they think only people like them will get into heaven, they may not necessarily be saying that people unlike them will all go to hëll.
Dante was Catholic, which follows a strict adherence to canon, and at least for his time rewards and punishment were not so much issued in the afterlife as the dead continued to behave as they did in life. All of the tortures in the Inferno? Those were meant to represent what we who are guilty do to ourselves while we are alive. There’s nothing stopping the dámņëd from going purgatory to transform their behavior if they choose. There are simply people who are relentless in their behavior.”
To the best of my knowledge based on my very limited studies on the subject and having read a while back the first 100 cantos of Dante’s Divine Commedy (not as funny as I expected), according to medieval Christian theology the dámņëd cannot decide to go from hëll to purgatory. Hëll and purgatory are places of punishment. Dante described the pubishments as fitting the crimes of the sinners in life. There’s a place in Dante’s hëll dedicated to non-Christians who were nevertheless rightuous.
Mike: It is true that many – not all, I’m sure – of Bin Laden’s admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom. That doesn’t change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us. Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn’t suggest we’re anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way.
>It’s troubling to think what can happen when a single word is translated the wrong way.
Not just a word. A Canadian company got nailed for millions because of one extra comma in a contract which [as written, instead of as intended to read] allowed the people they contracted with to break the contract years early and renegotiate at far more advantageous terms.
Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and …
Rob Brown –
There is, however, one major difference between myself and Falwell:
This was the point I was really trying to get to, but never actually arrived at.
It’s more or less the same thing: you have somebody helpless, at your mercy, and you take their life. Is there a significant difference?
If not, there can be no argument for any kind of euthanasia. It would also seem to preclude any kind of military action that was not a cut and dried self defense action.
I’m not for the death penalty but I think there is a lot of difference, just as kidnapping a person is wrong but taking a kidnapper and forcing them to live in a prison is not.
“It is true that many – not all, I’m sure – of Bin Laden’s admirers celebrate martyrdom. Quite a few of them would prefer that someone else experience the joys of martyrdom.”
The ideology of Bin-Laden’s followers views martyrdom as desireable. What they feel deep in their heart when someone dies is an open question. Regardless, the kind of martyrdom they prefer is the kind where they die killing others, and not when they are killed by their enemies. Althugh that too is martyrdom (in Arabic: Shuhada — martyer-Shahid).
“That doesn’t change the fact that extreme exultation in his demise could cause increased attacks on us.”
Once you killed him, the fact that you also celebrated his death is the least of your or their problem. They already hate you and want vengeance.
Only recently the US killed an Al-Quaida guy in Afghanistan, and a few days later the Brigades of the Shahid X were making threats of revenge.
It is also likely that they assume you are celebrating the death regardless of what you actually do, since they celebrate deaths of their enemies.
However, celebrating someone’s death in a public way is, in my opinion, in bad taste. So, aside from a quiet good riddance I would keep the chapagne in the fridge.
Of course he is a bad man; I wouldn’t suggest we’re anything like him: I would just prefer to minimize the chance of his people getting in touch with my people in the worst possible way.”
“And just hope whoever follows him isn’t worse.”
While I can agree with that on principle, it’s a different era now than when Falwell first came on the scene. Also, anyone who tries to fill the void he left(don’t make a fat joke, don’t make a fat joke…) will be seen by many as trying to be another Falwell. I really think it’ll be a long time before we see another of his ilk rise the way he did.
The whole “Thou shalt not kill” thing always bothered me. Most people take it to mean kill PEOPLE, but word guy that I am, I’d point out it doesn’t SAY people. So, you can’t kill animals for food. I’m not going to get into the whole vegetation-as-food thing in case anyone’s eating while reading this. Thou shall not commit murder–now THAT makes sense. Except for the whole eye for eye bit, and God showing people how to win wars and things.
” practically having the Grim Reaper as a coworker.”
Rex, I read that, and an entire comedy sketch burst into my head, where the Reaper never refills the coffee pot, always moans and complains and is a general know it all who whines a lot. Come to think of it, I think I work with Death now.
Quite a few of Bin Laden’s followers aren’t in much of a hurry to be martyred. Perhaps they aren’t true believers, or perhaps they prefer to live on as strategists for the present. Other than that, I have no disagreement with Micha. We can’t, won’t and shouldn’t make friends with these people, but there are some provocations we would be wise to avoid.
Now consider the Bible and the centuries which have passed and the number of translations and interpretations and …
I really have to recommend again a book I mentioned long ago in another thread, Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Great book that just gets into the hows and whys without attacking anybody, their faith or their lack of same.
Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
“Our” side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we’d most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.
Certainly, you’re not suggesting you don’t support our troops! (gasp!)
PAD: Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one’s beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.
I just thought it interesting that you’d start by saying “the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, ‘Oh well.'”, make an “exception” (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn’t be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren’t *someone*.
Granted, I don’t always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.
[Fixing italic tags since I don’t want to mis-represent anyone or confuse on who said what.]
PAD: Well, two reasons:
First, his own family has publicly disavowed him.
Second, he masterminded the deaths of over 3000 people and, if he has the opportunity, will mastermind the death of more.
There IS such a thing as degrees.
Absolutely agree there are degrees. And that they can lead to fine distinctions in one’s beliefs that might make the beliefs appear inconsistent.
I just thought it interesting that you’d start by saying “the knowledge that *someone* out there is grieving his passing precludes me from thinking much beyond, ‘Oh well.'”, make an “exception” (yes, the first part was specifically about Falwell and perhaps shouldn’t be taken to be a general statement) for Bin Laden, and then qualify that because his family disavowed him as if non-family aren’t *someone*.
Granted, I don’t always succeed at being consistent in my beliefs. Or at least fail to express them well enough to avoid them seeming inconsistent. Devil in the details.
Posted by: Sean Martin at May 17, 2007 12:56 PM
“Mike: The admirers you are referring to celebrate martyrdom. Your qualification does not apply.
“Our” side celebrates martyrdom, too. Perhaps not in the form of suicide bombers (although Battlestar Galactica provided a very nice example of where we’d most likely be all for them) but we certainly praise those who give their lives for what we percieve as a higher cause.
Certainly, you’re not suggesting you don’t support our troops! (gasp”
Yes and no.
Yes, westerners also admire self sacrifice.
No. There is a specific rhetoric among radical Islamists stating literally that the cowardly westerners love life hile the Islamists love death.
Presumably they should be happy at the opportunity to die, and their families should rejoice and encourage others to do the same. While westerners feel sad for the death while admiring the sacrifice.
Again, we can’t be certain if the followers and relations of a shahid are really not sad for his death or is it that just the facade that is expected of them.
I suggest that anyone who is an absolutist on the issue of “they are suicide bombers, and they are not; They celebrate suicide bombing, and we do not” should research Colin P. Kelly, Jr., one of the first acclaimed American war heroes of World War II. He was widely hailed for flying his disabled B-17 into the Japanese battleship “Haruna.” He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for this heroic deed. As it turned out, the report was mistaken: after bombing the aircraft carrier “Ashigara” his plane was critically damaged by a Mitsubishi Zero-sen. After piloting his B-17 until all of his crew had bailed out, he ran out of time, and the craft exploded in the air, killing him – an act that was at least as heroic as the mistaken account. So, although he was definitely not a suicide bomber, the supposed act met with huge acclamation here in the United States. Demonizing the enemy until he cannot be recognized as our species makes it very difficult to deal with or predict.
Jeffrey, there’s an obvious flaw in your story, inaccurate report notwithstanding…today’s suicide bombers are healthy, whole, hale individuals that are targeting civilians. The pilot that steers his critically damaged aircraft into an enemey military target is probably not going to make it back to base, anyway, nor is his plane. He knows or thinks his own death…already risked and currently in a combat situation…is imminent, so he may as well carry out his mission…inflict damage/casualties to the enemy…if he can.
Comparing the acts of a soldier to those of a terrorist in this case are totally inappropriate. There’s simply no similarity at all between the two, other than that they both involve an individual willing to immediately end his life in an effort to kill someone else. But that’s like saying both Earth and Mars are planets. Factually true, but it doesn’t even begin to explain the differences that exist between the two.
The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy.
As far as Dante explicitly said God would forgive Satan immediately if he were truly contrite, there was no divine punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. The simple definition/purpose of hëll is to accept those who are denied the ecstacy of paradise, and the environments are established by the residents. As far as the souls of the dámņëd are monstrous, the severer neighborhoods in hëll are simply their natural environment.
Dante kept emphasizing how the glutenous, the lustful, the wrathful did not relent in indulging in their appetites, how the contagious, incendiary nature of theft fed the thievish fire, how the fortune-tellers’ heads twisted (their tears streaming into their own áššëš) was a direct result of their intolerance of uncertainty, how the lack of identity of the fraudulent fed their own polymorphism — he presented the dámņëd suffering more from their own compulsive behavior than the disapproval of some divine parole arbiter. Heaven and hëll just doesn’t seem like the life and death issue Dante’s audience took it as.
As far as the reservations against celebrating the death of Falwell explored here have nothing to do with decreasing the prospect of terrorist retaliation from offended Christians, your qualification still does not apply.
Was that not Hammurabi?
Our troops are not recruited as martyrs, as suicide bombers are. Our troops are not samurai who live for the prospect of sacrificing their lives in fidelity to a holy trust. The military as I knew it probably would have screened people like that out as too Holden-Caulfieldish, since it enjoyed the prestige of its members having a death-rate lower than the corresponding demographic in the civilian world.
“The Divine Comedy is 100 cantos long. My understanding is that the term comedy was first established as a basic distinction from tragedy.”
You are correct on both counts. I was confused. only read 100 pages. However, I believe you are giving Dante a modern interpretation that does not fit the perception of 13th century catholics of heaven and hëll. There certainly is a creative vale in such an interprtation, if you want to pursue it. But if you are reading it as a historical text you have to understand how Dante and his audiences understood it. If you could proove that your interpretation corresponds to the perceptions of 13th century people, that would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history. I know of two cases in which historians were able to show that other historians were reading texts incorrectly, and attributing to medievals concepts that were not their own. But it requires hard work to acheive something like that.
“Heaven and hëll just doesn’t seem like the life and death issue Dante’s audience took it as.”
Although I was told that some of Dante’s contemporaries thought he actually has seen hëll, I think we can assume that the hëll he was describing is based on the ideas common in his time + his own literary talent.
Bobb Alfred: No, Colin Kelly wasn’t a suicide bomber – but when Americans thought he was, they thought that was a great thing. That’s the only point of that story. The real events of his death are every bit as heroic as any of the false stories. This isn’t about him, but the reaction of an inflamed and enraged populace shortly after Pearl Harbor. Given enough rage at the enemy, a wide range of actions contrary to our self image may be applauded.
From an article edited by a retired seminary dean and aproved by a retired archbishop:
Calvin came 200 years after Dante. If one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.
You have to go back 60 years for an example of a American who did not lose his resolve to fight in the face of doom to establish a relationship between Americans and those who actively recruit martyrs. Your example is too obscure to even qualify as a “Where’s Waldo?” puzzle.
Jeffrey, you’ve been quiet until you started very recently to jump at every prospect of hypocrisy. Have you noticed some kind of dramatic upsurge in hypocrisy in Peter’s comments sections or are you going for some kind of dramatic effect, like a staggering James Brown inciting his audience with his renewed vitality?
Mike: I really don’t care that you consider Colin Kelly obscure. I don’t find him so. My use of his example is just to put the lie to the idea that Americans don’t have it in them to applaud suicide bombing. It’s beyond question that some here do, and that some are perfectly willing to commit homicide bombings, if not the suicide variety. As to your perception that I am driven to attack whatever I think hypocritical, and that is my primary focus here, consider my several comments about your posts: I didn’t call you a hypocrite – rather, I thought your posts were bizarre and incomprehensible. That’s a different thing entirely.
I am suspicious of your belief that there was no widespread 13th Century Catholic belief that God punished sinners with Hëll, but will need to look into it further. Your citation of a retired (modern) seminary dean’s view of the matter is just that: the view of a 20th Century theologian – perhaps accurate as to 13th Century mores, or perhaps a summation of his own modern understanding, seven centuries later. I’ll see what I can find about the views of the church and the public at the time. My current understanding is that a fear of condemnation to Hëll was quite widespread, and the perceived remedy was obedience to God. The concept of Satan, who had lost his war with an omnipotent God, being able to snatch souls against God’s will is quite a difficult one to grasp!
Mike, you’re dabbling in theology! How nice.
However, the theologian you quote states himself that he is trying to replace the ‘incorrect’ concept of hëll, that has been held by Catholics since medieval times, and later by Protestant, with a ‘correct’ concept of hëll based on returning to the Bible and Early Chruch writings.
He begins his article by saying:
“The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hëll, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hëll are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.”
“This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).”
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.”
It is an nice theology. Better or not than the theology held by the Catholics or protestants, I do not know. However, the queston we were dealing with is not what is the ‘correct’ theology, but rather what medieval people like Dante believed about Hëll? Unless you wish to content that Dante diviated from the theology of his time and held a view similar to the theologian you quoted? That would be an impressive acheivement in the field of history.
Meanwhile, here is a link to the Catholic encyclopedia’s article about Hëll.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
“Hëll (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hëll:
hëll in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the dámņëd, be they demons or men;
the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.”
And here is a link to James Joyce’s A Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man (I haven’t read Ulysses); the part in which he listens to a priest lecture about hëll. I remember it as very vivid.
And here is the link to wikipedia:
“The nature of hëll and its punishment is a subject of debate between various denominations. Hëll is however generally held to be irrevocable and eternal. Some Christians believe that hëll is a physical place. Some believe that, while hëll is real, it is a state, rather than a place, of separation from God. Others hold that hëll is a metaphor for a self-imposed mental separation from God. Some view hëll as a place of punishment by God while others see it more in terms of self-exclusion from God. Some hold that there are physical torments in hëll, principally fire. Some believe that Hëll is nothing more than a vice that has been created through literature and other non-Biblical sources in order to “win” people to Christianity and that it has little to no Biblical support. Hëll has historically played a large part in post-Constantinian Western culture, especially during the Middle Ages, and continues to significantly influence Western language, custom, usage, literature and iconography.”
Micha: Thank you for providing that fairly comprehensive reference.
Even if we could ascertain the official theology of a particular time, I think it would be difficult to know how well that had penetrated common thought.
Jeffrey, there is a tendancy to go to one of two extremes. Either to assume that suicide bombers are completely alien, or to assume that they are completely like us and fully understandable.
The truth is in the middle as usual. The emotions that motivate suicide bombers are the same as ours, but they are currently living in a culture that is different in certain respects than western culture, and which might seem strange to us, although not incomprehensible.
In any case, Western culture today does not object so much to the idea of self sacrifice. The three aspects of suicide bombings that are hard to deal with are the objective: the deliberate harming and terrorizing civilians who are living their daily lives; the method: sacrificing people as a method — western armies usually don’t send their soldiers on suicide missions as a common strategy but only in extreme circumstances, but in general seek to keep the soldiers alive as much as possible; and some of the rhetoric involved in the indoctrination of suicide bombers.
Your example cites so few surviving celebrants as to constitute an aberration.
Not that I disagree Americans don’t have it in them to applaud suicide bombing — you simply argue as to discredit the notion yourself.
???
Please remind me who here applauds suicide bombing and is perfectly willing to commit homicide and suicide bombings themselves.
Hypocrisy is bad. Why wouldn’t you address what you think hypocritical? I’m just wondering if why you’ve been quiet until now has been that this forum has encountered some kind of steep incline in hypocrisy as to warrant your vigorous reengagement.
Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?
That seems to apply as “I see nothing wrong with what you say, but I know it’s wrong anyway.” What virtue does that nurture?
He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
In listing portrayals of hëll alien to early Christian thought, he does not say the middle ages nurtured juridical concepts of hëll any more than he says the middle ages nurtured enlightenment rationalizations of hëll.
I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.
James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 08:25 AM
“Micha: Thank you for providing that fairly comprehensive reference.”
I am not satisfied with it. I’ve wasted to much time trying to find some article or reference that deal specifically with medieval concepts of hëll. I’m afraid this is one of these cases that you have to actually go to the library and look in the dictionary of the middle ages, which I’m not going to do.
“Even if we could ascertain the official theology of a particular time, I think it would be difficult to know how well that had penetrated common thought.”
It is true that it is harder to know what common people believed, since they didn’t write. There are however many books about popular beliefs. A historian called Carlo Ginzburg wrote a book about popular heretic beliefs. I don’t remember the name. It’s very famous. He used the accounts of the interrogations of the inquisition a a source.
The art on European cathedrals gives you an indication of the image of hëll offered to the general public by the church.
Dante wrote in Italian, the language of the people, which is also significant.
That was so irrelevant that I overlooked it in quoting you. I never said this, and Dante opened the Divine Comedy as being lost in a wood, not being taken as some kind of hostage.
Mike, I will go one step better than Jeffery and label you hypocritical. For all the obscure references you spout out…I still have no idea which Campbell said you can’t create without breaking some established paradigm, and I don’t really care to google something like that…for you to try and call another poster on using the same tactic is the very definition of hypocritical.
And Jeffrey…trying to characterize the dying soldier attempting to kill one more enemy as a suicide bomber is just plain silly. It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country. Sure, we send out combat medics, and we do everything we can to save our wounded (so they can fight another day if they are still able), but there’s a long-standing heroic tradition of the warrior that fights on in the face of certain death, or fights on despite impossible odds…the suicide mission.
Today’s terrorist bombers are not on a suicide mission. They ARE the suicide mission. They aren’t going on a mission to capture a strategic point, or disable a war vessel, or destroy a key bridge…the whole point of the mission is for them to die killing as many civilians as possible. There’s a fundamental difference between Americans cheering the valiant death of a soldier…already fatally wounded…pressing on in an attempt to continue his mission, which has a military objective and doesn’t target civilians. Look at the key events of that story…he pressed on flying his aircraft in order to damage or destroy a Japanese battlesehip. Do you really think that America would have cheered him had he been reported as staving off death so he could fly his crippled bomber into a group of Japanese school children?
Yes, I know the Japanese were pretty vilified at the time, so undoubtedly some would have in fact cheered such a target, but most would have looked on in horror and commented on the innocent casualties of war.
America does noy cheer the suicide bomber as it’s known today. Calling actions like those attributed to Kelly Jr. the same thing as what occurs today is an insult to the sacrifice every soldier that’s given or risked his life in combat has made.
Mike: “I never said this” – very true. I did, and it is very encouraging that you can recognize the difference. It seems to me that giving an example of something happening is not “arguing to discredit the notion (myself).” Much better would be to say you don’t think I have substantiated my claim – that would be much harder to disprove. As for who here (America) applauds homicide bombings, Timothy McVeigh and those who supported him come to mind. If you thought I meant “PeterDavid.net” by “here,” the fault is mine for being unclear. I won’t argue that applauding homicide bombings is healthy or righteous – merely that it occurs, here and elsewhere. As far as the matter of me finding and making a crusade against increasing hypocrisy on this board – Not at all: I sometimes go extended periods without looking at the site. For whatever reason it may be (I don’t have a theory to explain it) I may decide to visit, and when I do some topic may seem interesting. As the site is set up, I first see PAD’s initial post. If it is interesting or provocative I will read the responses. If any of these seem mistaken or unfair, and I feel like it, I will wade in and say whatever seems right. It might seem to be wasted effort, because I seldom change any minds here, and also because I know going in that some aspects of PAD’s style of expressing himself – either his sense of humor or his point of view differing from my own – tend to set me off in a way most here are not. This was much more of a problem in the past than it is now, and I’m not planning to desert the site (although several would encourage it, I’m sure).
Micha: You are certainly correct that the sources you provided don’t give a final answer: I just appreciated your effort to provide what information you could. The distinctions you provide between El Qaida-style terrorism and the American commonplace are entirely correct, and I don’t want to argue otherwise. You provide two extreme views of the distinction, which I think you will agree are both mistaken. Thinking there is no distinction between our methods is foolishly naive – definitely too self-despising. Thinking the other is completely alien without exception makes it more difficult to comprehend and deal with its tactics.
Bobb Alfred: I will quibble with you about the soldier’s first duty being to die for his country. The first duty is to achieve the objective given him – seizure of territory, destruction of materiel, killing, disabling or capturing enemy troops, and that sort of thing. The death of an American soldier in attempting these goals is a side effect, rather than a goal. Any commander who instructed his soldiers to die as a thing in itself – “You, staff sergeant, kneel in the corner and disembowel yourself” – would be in grave violation of the laws of war, U.S. and international law. You believe that the vast majority of the American public – even during WWII – would have looked on in horror at the loss of innocent lives. As it turns out, they really weren’t all that upset at that sort of thing at the time. Consider the civilian casualties in Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many other places. At the time, there was significant desire for revenge against the aggressor nations. Now, many (definitely myself) justify or explain the firebombing and nuclear obliteration of cities primarily populated with civilians with military necessity. Our popular culture at the time certainly celebrated slaughter – in pulp fiction, war movies, news reports and comic books. (take a look at the joy of the Human Torch, Toro, Captain America and Bucky, just to mention Timely’s contributions to world art.)
We are much better than the bad guys, but not entirely alien to them.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
Below are a few links to sections of the Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologia, concerning hëll.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5097.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5098.htm#2
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
Below are a few links to sections of the Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologia, concerning hëll.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5097.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5098.htm#2
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Here is a link to a source about the interpretation of Dante’s work. I recommend typing ‘Punishment’ in the search, and taking a peak on the results.
http://dante.dartmouth.edu/
“Why? I simply took the Inferno at its word as representative of belief at its time. What’s the hardship?”
1) You are presenting your own interpretation of Dante — which seems at odds with historical and literary research of Dante, medieval history, and theology, as fact, although you lack qualification to do so.
2) You are representing your interpretation of Dante as if it’s reflective of medieval culture, although you lack qualification to do so.
3) You assume that because Dante described the torments of hëll as symbolically connected to the sins of the reprobate, it means that hëll is not a place of punishment. Although such interpretation is possible, and may even have some basis in ancient and modern theology, it does not necessarily follow from the text, and is contrary to the common interpretation. It is likewise possible, and more likely, that the torments of hëll, as described by Dante, are a case of a punishment fitting the crime, but punishment nevertheless. This seems to be the common interpretation.
4) You have offered nothing to support your interpretation of Dante’s text, or to suggest that it corresponds to medieval perceptions. The article you offered does not do so, since it presents a modern reading of the bible and early church, and not of medieval beliefs.
“He does not say the incorrect medieval view of hëll was that they nurtured the notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.”
Sure he does:
“In Western thought Hëll is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“This [his interpretation] is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.”
That is, until the central Middle Ages.
“When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines….”
Namely the doctrine he rejects in the first two paragraphs.
“I never said Catholicism nurtures no notion of a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. I said it wasn’t nurtured in the Inferno, and the passage you cite does not change that.”
You said that Dante’s views about hëll, as you interpret them, are reflective of the attitude of contemporary medieval catholics.
The view in the Catholic Encyclopedia about hëll represnts official Catholic doctrine which goes back to medieval times (also according to the article you linked).
There are two possibilities. Either you are wrong in your interpretation of what Dante thought of hëll, or that Dante’s views do not reflect the views of his time. You are unable to proove either.
“James Joyce was published 600 years after Dante. The disagreement is still the protrayal of hëll in the Inferno, is it not? Again, if one of us is attributing to medievals concepts that were not theirs, it ain’t me.”
James Joyce went to a Jesuit school, and so does the character in the book. In the scene I cited he hears a sermon. The preacher derives most of his material from Thomas Aquinas, the famous 13th century theologian. So Joyce’s desription is representative both of the image of hëll held by late 19th century jesuits which was passed on to them to a large degree from medieval theologians.
I recommend going to the catholic encyclopedia and typing Thomas Aquinas and hëll. You’lee get refered to section of the Summa Theologica in translation refering to hëll.
I am not an expert on medieval theology or Dante. Something tells me you are also not one. So this discussion is going beyond our abilities,unless you are a medieval scholar and hid it for me. So I thing this discussion should come to an end now.
Our popular culture at the time certainly celebrated slaughter – in pulp fiction, war movies, news reports and comic books. (take a look at the joy of the Human Torch, Toro, Captain America and Bucky, just to mention Timely’s contributions to world art.)
I don’t recall any of those characters celebrating the slaughter of civilians. Soldiers and politicians, yes.
Witness how quickly the American public came to see the Japanese and Germans in a sympathetic light once the hostilities were finished, airdropping food to Germans trapped by the Berlin blockade and buying Japanese goods and movies.
Jeffrey, you’re missing the point by getting bogged down in details. I didn’t say, specifically, that a soldiers goal is to die, as you rightly point out that would be of little relative use. However, in achieving his goals/mission, it is the soldiers duty to risk their life…indeed, as if often the case, to lose their life…in the pursuit of their objectives. In few other occupations is it considered one of your job requirements to be ready and willing to risk your life in order to obtain an objective.
Consider the D-Day beach storming. Military command knew darn well that casualties would be high that day. Is that a side effect? I suppose so, considering that sending American GIs to their death was not the objective of the mission. But it was expected of each and every man that set boots on those beaches that they were expected to give their lives in an effort to secure the beachheads. That’s what I mean by a soldier’s duty…to give their lives so that others…be it soldier or civilian…don’t have to.
As for the civilian, collateral damage caused by large-scale bombing raids…I’ve already admitted that there were some…there always will be some…that so vilify the enemy that it includes every last man, woman, and child. Thankfully, in America, those folks are rare. In addition, the technology of the day prevented the kind of precision strikes that we see today, where a cruise missile can fly in through a window of a specific building containing just enough charge to destroy the target in the middle of a residential area, inflicting no more harm to nearby buildings than the dust from the target. They were dropping 800 pound cases of iron from 15000 feet…inaccuracy was unavoidable, acceptable, and regretable. But like those deaths on the beaches of Normandy and elsewhere, a necessary cost to waging war.
It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country.
I’d disagree that a soldier’s first duty is to die for his country. You can die in combat and do exactly zip for your side or your country.
Today’s terrorist bombers are not on a suicide mission. They ARE the suicide mission.
There’s also a far greater difference between a soldier who gets into a situation where he’s sure he’s going to die and decides to take as many of his opposition out as he can in his believed final act and someone who sets out from second one to die. Most soldiers don’t set out with the intent to die. They want to come back alive from the field. Soldiers that go into combat wanting to die are almost universally seen as unstable and pulled from duty as a risk to themselves and others. Even “suicide missions” are often a misnomer. They’re extremely high risk, but the people involved don’t go into them trying to get killed by the end of it.
A suicide bomber intends to die as their final act of their mission. There’s no attempt to find the best way to maximize damage to the enemy/target while still living to fight another day.
A soldier looks for that chance to fight another day. A suicide bomber looks to have no other days.
There’s absolutely no comparison at all between the two.
Bobb Alfred: “It’s a sodlier’s (sic) first duty to die for his country….the suicide mission.”
Bobb Alfred (different post) “I didn’t say, specifically, that a soldier’s goal is to die.”
Jeffrey Frawley (Me, specifically, right now): No, you said his first duty was to die, and that we have a tradition of suicide missions. I’ll agree that you didn’t say, specifically that a soldier’s goal is to die. You used different words.
Jerry Chandler is right that suicide bombing is not an established American tradition. There are anomalies, but he is correct except for such rarities. I won’t dispute his point. Deranged criminality and state policy have serious differences.
Wow, Jeffrey, are you trying to be obstinate, or just really aggressive in trying to win a pointless point. There are 52 words contained in that eliipses, and you’ve totally lost my contextual meaning. Contained in those 52 words is the idea that we (America) routinely send combat medics into the field along with our sodliers in an attempt to recover the wounded. My later comment on the suicide mission is in reference to a long-standing tradition of the heroic sacrifice of the doomer warrior.. Note the very deliberate omission of a “we” or “American” in that context. As the recent film 300 shows, the idea of a few or single brave soul facing impossible odds, certain death, in order to protect the greater good or win a war, existed long, long before American troops even existed. To jump from my contention that a soldiers’ (thanks for pointing out my grammatical error…in a high school English class, I’d humbly accept my B+ for that…on a web page, it just makes you look like you’re being an ášš on purpose) first duty is to die for his country to the idea that America has a tradition suicide missions requires a leap beyond Olympian level. More than that, it ignores the very examples I gave that suggest that America does not, in fact, have a tradition of suicide missions, but merely continues to recognize the historical and long-standing ideal of the heroic sacrifice by the group or individual.
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, at least make them resemble what I actually posted.
I’ve been just skimming and lurking for the last several days because I’ve been busy at work. But a recent uptick in a certain kind of behavior here has prompted me to steal a few minutes away from my hefty workload to say something.
I doubt Jeffrey Frawley and his ilk will heed this but it bears saying nevertheless: this is a blog, not a court of law or a high school debate team. Communication is much easier when you make a good-faith attempt to understand what other posters meant, rather than attempt to impose meaning on their posts in order to score some imaginary “points.” And yes, in some cases, people will phrase their thoughts with less than perfect precision. But I fail to understand why some of you, like Jeffrey Frawley, believe that is an opportunity to do nothing but shriek “no you phrased it this way so this is what you meant so I win I WIN I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!“
I mean, seriously, what have you won? Bragging rights? Oh, yeah, that’ll go far. Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry. And make sure to tell your boss as well. I’m sure it’ll earn you a promotion. Oh, and mention it to your friends and family at a party. I’m sure their eyes won’t glaze over as you regale them with your blogging prowess.
I’m not saying we all need to agree. No, I think honest disagreement is healthy. But there’s nothing honest about trying to trip someone up with minutae.
I know I’m probably wasting my breath. But I thought I’d give it a shot.
Back to work.
Bill Myers: Try approaching some hottie and telling her, “Hey, I can skewer my online enemies with my rapier wit.” Oh, yeah, that’ll get you in the sack with her in a hurry.
So clearly you are supporting Jeffery Frawley’s approach. I mean, that is what you just wrote, right?
“It’s a sodlier’s first duty to die for his country” (no ellipsis, and no spellcheck) is what Bobb Alfred said. I don’t know why he said it. I don’t know what he really meant to say. Beyond that, I don’t think he’d be a particularly good soldier. I do know I wouldn’t want to serve under him.
How many Campbells do you know of who would have said that every act of creation is an act of destruction? And are you calling me hypocritical arbitrarily, Counselor or is there a selective application of principle by me you have in mind?
When your challenge is based on a 60 year-old incident, the challenge becomes far-fetched for a modern application.
And I didn’t say you argued to discredit. Are you so fragile you need to attribute a false quote to me?
As far as America applauding Timothy McVeigh goes — Timothy McVeigh bombed anonymously, and America prosecuted and executed him when they discovered him.
I have a theory to explain it: you are like James Brown, staggering as you sacrifice your very life-force in dedication, then as one of your minions holds your cape to your back, you theatrically demonstrate new vigor to the roar of your audience.
“Your session has timed out. Click here to continue.”
As far as Dante said that God would forgive Satan, or maybe the quote was even forgive anyone, he believed their was no punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. The article cited Calvin as the source for the belief in a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll.
You haven’t presented any research, and I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
Dante simply cites no divine agenda in establishing such punishment.
You almost make it sound like Dante has Jesus pummeling the guilty with their own hands and asking them why they keep hitting themselves. It simply makes more sense to accept the portrayal of the dámņëd punishing themselves, and accepting the tears of the Baby Jesus as authentic, so to speak. Just because they hadn’t invented the printing press yet, that doesn’t mean the medievals should be denied credit for any brains.
As far as Dante said God does not withhold forgiveness, that’s all the evidence I need.
“Western thought” and “medieval thought” are not terms that can be used interchangeably.
As far as “Western thought” and “medieval thought” are not terms that can be used interchangeably, your quotes do not demonstrate a medieval belief in a punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. Yes, the article rejects the portrayal of hëll as serving a divine agenda of punishment — a portrayal which the Inferno does not incorporate.
I just said I took Dante for what he said.
I never denied Dante was controversial, if that’s what you’re saying. He presented the Divine Comedy in Italian and shocked the public with its vulgarity — Dante was the punk rock of his time.
Even so, punk rock does not present environments unknown to convention.
I should hope the responsibility of proving I’m wrong should go to the person challenging me — we have the option of not testifying against ourselves in America. And I made no claim of Dante’s influence other than that I read him.
Like the song says: Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong.
As we in America enjoy the option of not testifying against ourselves: feel free to share a relevant Aquinas quote anytime it suits you.
As much as you may wish otherwise, I never said I was.