If there is any excuse for what they did in some point of their life, God knows and will take everything into account, but not everyone has excuses

So let us not pretend we are more wise, or merciful thatn God because we refuse to be just. Specially if we have only a glimpse of the nature of man, sin, punishment, and the eternal, and are in no position to say "that is too much punishment"

We can't just say "hurr durr if I represent some sin with a number, then the punishment can't be infinite, because 8374 - infinity = -infinity, and a good god would only apply a punishment equal to 8374"

Those are just cringe-worthy attempts to quantize sin, and grace, and punishment and justice

I just revised my canon. I no longer believe in the gospel of Luke.

At that point you are just believing in wishful thinking

You are foolish enough to think that God is incompatible with Hell

So you say "well, rather than rejctig God, I will reject those parts"

Just kidding, lol. I thought you Catholics weren't supposed to read the bible yourself. Yeah, that does seem to imply hell. I'll kick that one up to my buddies.

There are many dangers in many people reading the Bible themselves

What is the bible/

Like what is the canon, and who decides? Do you accept Enoch?

The canon is decided by the Church, which has precedents and a rightful claim to matters that require divine inspiration/intervention

The Church gathers in councils and makes a list

Do you accept Enoch? It has all these bizarre things about angels and women marrying, which Christ said could not happen, and it talks about the watchers and all these goofy mystical things.

Do you believe in the intermarriage of angels and human women?

But since it is declred scripture, we believe that God affected its writtings. I assure you that there is nothing that you mention that was unknown by the people of the councils

Okay. I assure you that they wrestled with themselves and others over theology.

But the councils are not jsut some human thing

They were trying to square the circle in many ways.

So the conclusion is that God, through the Church, through the writer of the book, wants Enoch to be read, and considered, and whatever

Some things were left open to theological wrestling

This isn't one of them

"For in the resurrection they [humans] neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30; see Mark 12:25).

**Matthew 22:30 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<30> For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. ```

**Mark 12:25 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<25> For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. ```

This contradicts the idea of angels marrying women.

And Enoch is still declared Scripture by the Church created by Christ

Wow, sounds like a mess.

Doesn't seem like a mess to me

Do you really think that a book can't be scripture if you consider it to contradict whatever?

How do you deal with that apparent contradiction?

I think Enoch is absurd, yeah. It contradicts scripture. Jasher gives us a better explanation, and is cited as historical throughout the bible.

The label of Scripture marks something as divinely inspired, with a grasp of something divine

That is, divine intervention in some way, I would say

Now if you want to study the canon

Study the councils where they were declared canonical!

Well, I'll have to see what the more educated dudes have to say about that passage in Luke. GG

It doesn't apply only to Enoch, but to many books where some say "this is part of the canon" or "this is not". I follow the catholic canon.

Now anyone can dismiss the luke parable with a quick excuse

But it is up to you to determine if the excuses are consistent