What do you think happened to Pontius Pilate?

[smiddle]

Do you think he is in heaven, hell, or still in purgatory?

Well, that would be an extremely long timet to be in purgatory.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Do you think he is in heaven, hell, or still in purgatory?

Well, that would be an extremely long timet to be in purgatory.

Good question, but hard to judge. Jesus Himself said “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.” The Romans didn’t know they were torturing and killing God.

 

[GEddie]

Good question, but hard to judge. Jesus Himself said “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.” The Romans didn’t know they were torturing and killing God.

PP knew, however, that he was ordering the torture and death of someone innocent, and purely for personally venal reasons. He did not need to know he was killing God to incur substantial Purgatory.

Since Purgatory lies outside of time, speculation on his or anybody’s duration of Purgatory would be fruitless.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PazzoGrande]

PP knew, however, that he was ordering the torture and death of someone innocent, and purely for personally venal reasons. He did not need to know he was killing God to incur substantial Purgatory.

^Fair point. I overlooked that. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Hokomai]

I think he is dead, and no longer exists as a being, and that he has been unfortunate enough to be remembered for a single act, and then only in the words of his opponents. I remember reading a science fiction story about someone who went back in time specifically to interview Pilate. On doing do he found him happy to talk, but that for the life of him he could not remember anything about anyone called Jesus, or anyone who claimed to be the King of the Jews. I suspect this may have in fact been the case.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think he is dead, and no longer exists as a being, and that he has been unfortunate enough to be remembered for a single act, and then only in the words of his opponents. I remember reading a science fiction story about someone who went back in time specifically to interview Pilate. On doing do he found him happy to talk, but that for the life of him he could not remember anything about anyone called Jesus, or anyone who claimed to be the King of the Jews. I suspect this may have in fact been the case.

Hokomai, methinks you need to change your tagline. Despite labeling yourself as ‘not a believer’, you create a post that includes only beliefs that you do hold, no substantiated facts. It appears you are, in fact, quite the believer in things unproven.

Maybe you just trust your beliefs to things different than many of us others on this board.

Dan

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai, methinks you need to change your tagline. Despite labeling yourself as ‘not a believer’, you create a post that includes only beliefs that you do hold, no substantiated facts. It appears you are, in fact, quite the believer in things unproven.

Maybe you just trust your beliefs to things different than many of us others on this board.

Dan

I think humans have a natural tendency to ‘believe’ in things. I try not to do so, although sometimes I find myself doing it. I try only to conclude things, either as fact, when there is no reasonable doubt about them, or on the balance of probabilities, given a limited range of facts. So on the balance of probabilities, I conclude that there was a person called Pontius Pilate, and that he no longer exists.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think humans have a natural tendency to ‘believe’ in things. I try not to do so, although sometimes I find myself doing it. I try only to conclude things, either as fact, when there is no reasonable doubt about them, or on the balance of probabilities, given a limited range of facts. So on the balance of probabilities, I conclude that there was a person called Pontius Pilate, and that he no longer exists.

Your ‘conclusions’ in the absence of absolute proofs are just another person’s ‘beliefs’. There is no difference, except perhaps your perspective.

I agree with you, we do have a natural tendency to believe. You then say you try not to believe. The logic would seem to indicate that your goal is to be unnatural? Is that because man’s natural state is not ‘right’.

Dan

 

[eternalrest]

He is in Hell.

Third, in order to reveal God’s glory and patience. It was for this reason that I tolerated Pilate, Herod, and Judas, even though they were evil and damned.

From Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden

 

[7_Sorrows]

he died. beyond that, i really won’t be losing sleep over it.

 

[smiddle]

He is in Hell.

From Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden

Ah, thank you.

It kind of bothers me how we place so much blame on Pontius Pilate during mass. Yes, he was terrible for doing that to any human, but that was what was normal and the decision cannot all be put on him. His decision on the fate of Jesus was just another case, like Hokomai said.

 

[adrift]

He is in Hell.

From Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden

I do not believe that these are approved revelation .
It is not healthy to speculate who might be in hell but we should hope and pray for the salvation of all souls.

 

[AdamP88]

According to our faith it was neither Pilate or the Jews who killed Jesus…but the sins of each of us…So with every sin we commit - we are crucifying Christ.

 

[Hokomai]

Your ‘conclusions’ in the absence of absolute proofs are just another person’s ‘beliefs’. There is no difference, except perhaps your perspective.

I agree with you, we do have a natural tendency to believe. You then say you try not to believe. The logic would seem to indicate that your goal is to be unnatural? Is that because man’s natural state is not ‘right’.

Dan

Not really. I am 100% happy to change my conclusions when new evidence, or evidence I had not properly considered is presented. People who ‘believe’ tend to regard countervailing evidence as a ‘test’ they must pass by holding on to their beliefs. That’s one big difference I see. I am intrigued by the hypothesis that the tendency to ‘believe’; that is, accept authority, is a genetic adaptation in humans required to maintain our long childhood without injury. as a side-effect, it makes people more likely to believe in things like elves, gods, spirits, magic rocks and so on. In this sense, it is similar to our tendency to ‘believe’ optical illusions such as perspective in two-dimensional painting. Understandig that in fact the painting is is two dimensions is not being unnatural’, it is just accepting the fact that evolutionary adaptations are never perfect.

My conclusions about what happened to Mr Pilate can be contrasted in this way with our fellow-poster who ‘believes’ he is in hell because he accepts the word of a Saint who said so. I will never be right about everything by taking the approach I do. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so too are believers sometimes right where we unbelievers are not. But I believe that on average, in the long run, not believing and instead concluding will produce more right answers on average.

 

[AdamP88]

Not really. I am 100% happy to change my conclusions when new evidence, or evidence I had not properly considered is presented. People who ‘believe’ tend to regard countervailing evidence as a ‘test’ they must pass by holding on to their beliefs. That’s one big difference I see. I am intrigued by the hypothesis that the tendency to ‘believe’; that is, accept authority, is a genetic adaptation in humans required to maintain our long childhood without injury. as a side-effect, it makes people more likely to believe in things like elves, gods, spirits, magic rocks and so on. In this sense, it is similar to our tendency to ‘believe’ optical illusions such as perspective in two-dimensional painting. Understandig that in fact the painting is is two dimensions is not being unnatural’, it is just accepting the fact that evolutionary adaptations are never perfect.

My conclusions about what happened to Mr Pilate can be contrasted in this way with our fellow-poster who ‘believes’ he is in hell because he accepts the word of a Saint who said so. I will never be right about everything by taking the approach I do. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so too are believers sometimes right where we unbelievers are not. But I believe that on average, in the long run, not believing and instead concluding will produce more right answers on average.

I notice your signature is from Darwin…you do know he was a theist?

But that last part makes no sense…If I decide not to believe in gravity & conclude some ludicrous theory instead - how does that work?

 

[Hokomai]

I notice your signature is from Darwin…you do know he was a theist?

Hi Adam - I think I understand Darwin’s religious views at different times of his life, and I would not so describe him in his later life. Pontius Pilate, on the other hand, was a theist! Darwin’s religious views do interest me and if you have anything to add, please feel free to PM me. Thanks.

 

[smiddle]

I think humans have a natural tendency to ‘believe’ in things. I try not to do so, although sometimes I find myself doing it. I try only to conclude things, either as fact, when there is no reasonable doubt about them, or on the balance of probabilities, given a limited range of facts. So on the balance of probabilities, I conclude that there was a person called Pontius Pilate, and that he no longer exists.

Humans have a natural tendency to want something to believe in/worship, this is stated in Exodus 32.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I am 100% happy to change my conclusions when new evidence, or evidence I had not properly considered is presented.

Further proof of my suggestion that your ‘conclusions’ are really just your beliefs. If any of your conclusions have the slightest possibility of being wrong, then they remain beliefs. Which, to the extent that you make such conclusions, also makes you a believer. Perhaps not in God, but a believer nonetheless.

People who ‘believe’ tend to regard countervailing evidence as a ‘test’ they must pass by holding on to their beliefs.

What you are describing are not ‘people who believe’, but people whose beliefs appear irrational to you.

I am intrigued by the hypothesis that the tendency to ‘believe’; that is, accept authority, is a genetic adaptation in humans required to maintain our long childhood without injury.

Ahh, a new definition for believe. ‘To accept authority.’ An authoritative reference, please? Contemporarily, the acceptance of authority, and the belief in something to be true, are two completely different things. I can see how trying to draw a parallel between them would serve your conclusions, though.

I will never be right about everything by taking the approach I do. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so too are believers sometimes right where we unbelievers are not. But I believe that on average, in the long run, not believing and instead concluding will produce more right answers on average.

Are you adept enough to capture your own contradiction, or may I point it out.

“But I believe that on average, in the long run, not believing and instead concluding will produce more right answers on average.”

So, to paraphrase, you believe that not believing is better? Wow. Just Wow.

You are a believer. Better change your tagline.

 

[Hokomai]

Are you adept enough to capture your own contradiction, or may I point it out.

“But I believe that on average, in the long run, not believing and instead concluding will produce more right answers on average.”

So, to paraphrase, you believe that not believing is better? Wow. Just Wow.

You are a believer. Better change your tagline.

Yes I was adept enough to say it, purposefully, in the first place! It was intended to produce the smiley face.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Yes I was adept enough to say it, purposefully, in the first place! It was intended to produce the smiley face.

Well, since you said it, and it is true, you need to change your tag line. Maybe something like: “I believe that there is no God.”