Did Scrooge or Marley deserve eternal damnation?
-
dannieboy20906 — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 03:12 PM)
Maybe, but that's the movie.
The original quote from the novel (long short story, novella)is,
Scrooge: "But why do spirits walkd the earth, and why do they come to me?"
Marley's Ghost: "It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the worldoh, woe is me!and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!"
Purgatory was an invention of the Catholics. It does not exist in the Bible. Hell is a little more confusing, but is not clearly described in either testament. It is not clear that whether Marley's punishment is temporary or permanent. Given all of that, I always thought of Dickens as a charitable person. I would expect him to be Anglican and that church took on nearly all of the Catholic catechism. They rejected only the primacy of the Pope.
Right after that Marley says that Scrooge's "chain" is longer than his and that his (Scrooge's) fate will be worse. Does that mean a longer time in purgatory or permanent damnation to hell?
I think you are probably right at least as far as the movie goes. However, a little ambiguity does not harm the story.
What the hell, I'm damned if I know what Dickens meant.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
Clusium — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 05:55 PM)
That quote can be interpreted for either Purgatory or Hell. In actuality, Charles Dickens was Anglican (as you already noted), & according to Wikipedia, disapproved of Catholicism. Therefore, in all likeliehood, he envisioned Marley as being damned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Religious_views
Purgatory was an invention of the Catholics. It does not exist in the Bible.
No, Catholics
didn't
invent Purgatory. It is in the Bible, both in in the Old & New Testaments. In the Old Testament, it is in the Books of the Maccabees (which was edited out of Protestant Old Testaments, including the KJV), & in the New Testament, it is in St. Matthew, where Christ Warns the Pharisees about Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (He Said it was the Only Sin that was
Eternal
).
I think in the movie, he intends for it to mean that he is damned. Keep in mind that when we were watching Scrooge's memories being played out before him, by the Ghost of Christmas Past, by the time Marley dies, Scrooge is completely lacking in any kind of empathy whatsoever. Despite the fact that Marley was his best bud, he didn't care that he was going to die, only about continuing making money, & stays on at the office. Then when Marley finally does die, all he cared about was inheriting his money & his estate.
Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!! -
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 08:56 PM)
It is in the Bible
Purgatory is certainly not in the Bible. As the other poster said, it is indeed a catholic fabrication - and an anti-biblical one at that.
Christ Warns the Pharisees about Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (He Said it was the Only Sin that was Eternal).
What Christ said was that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the only sin that was unforgivable. However, that statement is in no way an affirmation of purgatory. Forgiveness from God or lack thereof always occurs
before
a sinner reaches God's Judgement Seat. According to Christ, once someone dies, he or she first goes to God's Judgement Seat, and after that, he or she goes to Heaven or Hell permanently, period. God's decision about that is final. No one goes to purgatory. And no one can be pardoned out of Hell.
Nothing in this film affirms the existence of purgatory either. On the contrary, this film affirms the Bible all throughout itself. -
Clusium — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 10:56 PM)
Purgatory is certainly not in the Bible. As the other poster said, it is indeed a catholic fabrication - and an anti-biblical one at that.
Purgatory is indeed in the Holy Bible. It's the Protestants who edited the Bible, not the Catholics!!
However, that statement is in no way an affirmation of purgatory.
Yes it is an affirmation of Purgatory. Christ Said Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that neither Receives Forgiveness in this life,
or the next
.
Judgement Day comes at the end of time. Only then, does Purgatory cease to be.
Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!! -
Navaros — 9 years ago(December 09, 2016 10:38 PM)
Purgatory is indeed in the Holy Bible.
That is not true.
Yes it is an affirmation of Purgatory.
No, it is not.
Christ Said Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that neither Receives Forgiveness in this life, or the next
Christ said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that
cannot
be forgiven. He did not say, however, as your quoted statement there implies, that all other sins
are
forgivenjust that other sins
can be
forgiven. But that forgiveness, if it happens, never comes
after
a soul has already come before God's Judgement Seat and then been cast into Hell.
Nowhere did Christ say that there is a waiting room level of Hell called "Purgatory." That is blasphemous bunkum.
Judgement Day
Judgement Day and Judgement at God's Judgement Seat, before which each soul appears as quickly as it leaves this earth, are two different things entirely. You seem to be conflating them.
Only then, does Purgatory cease to be.
Purgatory
cannot
cease to be,
because it has never existed
. Except in the imaginations of catholics who believe in the blasphemous fabrications of their dogma-makers, who invented "Purgatory" for the purpose of lining their own coffers by duping their followers into believing that they can for themselves and their dead relatives "pay their way out of Hell."
In other words, "Purgatory" is a scam designed to fool people into making fake catholic "authorities" filthy rich at the expense of the members of their congregations whom they fleece.
Incidentally, the show "The Sopranos" does an excellent job of exposing that scam for what it is. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 02:10 PM)
On the contrary, this film affirms the Bible all throughout itself.
I guess that depends on how you choose to interpret the bible. There are some new testament passages which seem to indicate that man can do nothing to 'save' himself, that salvation is only possible from God. Martin Luther certainly believed that. And that, of course, goes entirely against the spirit/message of this film.
The message in the film seems to be - interestingly enough, as Dickens was not Catholic - that one must engage in good works to be saved. Marley is not heard uttering 'sola fide' at any point lol. He makes it clear that he should have done more to help others ("mankind was my business"), and because he did not, he now suffers his fate. And furthermore, his offer of redemption for Scrooge is for him to change his ways (not mentioning his faith), which Scrooge immediately does beginning the next day (apologizing to those he hurt, buying gifts, raising salary, donating to the needy, etc.).
Just an observation. Not looking to delve deep into dogma/theology so if anyone wants to respond with all sorts of bible quotes, please don't. Opinions ~ fine. Bible lessons ~ not so much. -
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 08:49 PM)
Does that mean a longer time in purgatory or permanent damnation to hell?
Neither. Rather, it means that both Scrooge and Marley would be doomed to walk among mankind forever, but that while doing so, Scrooge would suffer to a greater extent (i.e. Scrooge would carry more pain with him). -
Clusium — 10 years ago(December 27, 2015 08:07 AM)
Neither. Rather, it means that both Scrooge and Marley would be doomed to walk among mankind forever, but that while doing so, Scrooge would suffer to a greater extent (i.e. Scrooge would carry more pain with him).
With all due respect, that sounds like permanent damnation to me, Navaros.
Totus Tuus O Maria!!! Totus Tuus O Jesu!!!! -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 12:18 PM)
There is a difference between 'permanent damnation to hell' and 'permanent damnation.'
When Navaros replied 'neither,' I'm guessing the distinction was being made on that point?
Because otherwise, there is little doubt the damnation appears to be permanent. Marley says to Scrooge (in the story)"I cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger anywhere.and weary journeys lie before me!" And elsewhere says "No rest, no peace. Incessant torture of remorse."
It seems clear this is his punishment, and the punishment has no end. But it's not punishment
in hell
. The punishment is here, 'doomed to wander through the world.' -
LesterFester — 11 years ago(January 03, 2015 11:42 PM)
by liching1 Wed Dec 24 2014It is not settled in mind that the Scrooge was guilty of any terrible - unforgiveable sins. His greatest fault here seems to be a lack of generosity combined with spite. he was just a gruff and grouchy old miser. Same with poor Marley. So they lent money at high rates and did a few shady business deals They were certainly no worse than the maid, cook and undertaker (not to mention the fence) in the scene in the rag shop. But Scrooge did not commit any crimes that I could see or even any unholy trangressions just some moral misdemeanors
As his nephew points out Scrooge's own worst enemy is himself. He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else. The things he does to set himself right at the end do not seem to be that desperate or drastic. He gives a little extra to the people who work for him - He treats his nephew and his nephew's wife better He affects a jolly air as he walks through the sewer that was Victorian London throwing a few coins around as he goes.maybe even lowers his interest rate on loans by half a percent or so -If that's all that it takes to get to heaven then sign me up. At any rate not a criticism of Dickens ===the story or the movie just food for thought.
What is sad is that society vilifies those things it should uphold as praiseworthy. Scrooge, through his actions, does exactly the same things shown on the reality programs, 'Shark Tank' and 'The Prophit'. Scrologe seeks out profitable opportunities, lends money and expects a return on his investment. Does he charge too much interest? Possibly But he reinvests and finds other avenues to put that incoming money to use. And what happens if Scrooge charges too much for an extended period of time? Others will see there is an opportunity to make money thereby bringing down the rates in the process. Then there is this notion that all problems can be solved by expropiating from some and giving to others without concequences. BS.
The question might be asked, 'Does Scrooge have character flaws?' To answer this a little disecting needs to be done. Since Dickens' novel was published, Scrooge has been looked upon as the most 'SELFISH' individual on the face of the earth. This is not true. In order for an individual to be classified as 'selfish' his actions must in the end benefit hin and his life (happiness). Scrooge acted with one purpose in mind: To attain and hold onto as much money as possble at the expense to his own health (he lives and works in an underheated s$#t hole).
The next question, 'Can a 'selfish' individual be compassionate or show empathy towards others?' Yes, if he chooses to do so and it has no effect on HIS wellbeing. What he has the right to object to is having his pockets picked.
So, I agree with your first paragraph.
As for your second paragraph?: That is what those who think they have the right to pick-your-pockets would want you to believe.
'Three can keep a secret if two are dead' -
Limeginger — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 01:08 AM)
By Dickens' and many others' standards you, the reality show people you mention, "society" you refer to (et al.) all will be dragging around heavy chains and wailing with regret about not ever having gotten the point of living, after your own breath ceases
-
Navaros — 10 years ago(July 01, 2015 10:13 PM)
I commend you on your thoughtful and interesting OP.
To say Scrooge and Marley deserve eternal damnation might be a bit harsh, but on the other hand
Scrooge did not commit any crimes that I could see or even any unholy trangressions just some moral misdemeanors
to call some of the things they did "moral misdemeanors" is going too far the other way, and
understating
the wrongness of many of their behaviors.
I.e. Scrooge tossed Old Fezziwig out on the street and took away his livelihood
and
the love of his life/his main purpose for living. That's
really
bad.
Scrooge also took food off of the table of Fezziwig's former employees who he kept on, and Bob Cratchit and his family, and his maid, by underpaying them. Again, those things are also
really
bad.
And Scrooge neglected Fan's wish that he take care of her son, although he didn't even hear itbut him not hearing it is also his fault because he was too busy raging at Fan's husband. Fan's husband may have felt terrible forever and unfairly blamed himself too as a result of Scrooge doing it first.
Fan's son happened to turn out well, but he would have had a much easier time in life if Scrooge took care of him a bit.
Not all of the bad things Scrooge did are super bad, but enough of them are that he does not deserve to be let off the hook easily. -
jzc008 — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 12:39 AM)
I think any judgement we may make on whether Scrooge deserved eternal damnation is affected by contemporary views which are probably more tolerant than those in Victorian England.
Scrooge's threatened punishment was because of the misery he caused others due to his obsession with monetary gain for himself. Times were harsher back then and generally speaking without a private income people had to work or rely on charity, the workhouse or prison to be a able to survive. He appears to be unaware of the extent of his actions on others hence the need of the various spirits to spell it out to him.
What is not clear to me is was his dramatic change of heart because of a newfound genuine concern for his fellow man before it was too late or was it that he was frightened of dying prematurely when he was shown his grave by the last spirit. Probably the story intended the former but he showed little evidence of compassion until he awoke having thought that he had died. -
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 01:05 AM)
What is not clear to me is was his dramatic change of heart because of a newfound genuine concern for his fellow man before it was too late or was it that he was frightened of dying prematurely when he was shown his grave by the last spirit. Probably the story intended the former but he showed little evidence of compassion until he awoke having thought that he had died.
In
this version
of Scrooge, the film most certainly
does
show plenty of evidence of Scrooge becoming compassionate as the spirits take him along. And by the time he gets to the grave, it's very obvious that he does not fear death itself; he merely fears dying before he has done any good on the earth.
However, many/most other versions of the Scrooge story certainly do indeed have the very problem you've described in that quoted text. That's one of the reasons with this Sim version is superior to them. -
Navaros — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 12:42 AM)
To be fair-Fezziwig refused to move with the times.He admitted it.
I agree that Fezziwig admitted that, but what's your point?
Are you implying that Fezziwig's refusal to move with the times justifies Scrooge taking over his business and thus taking away his livelihood? Because it doesn't. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 02:51 PM)
Two things.
This whole episode with Fezziwig isn't even in the original story. Fezziwig is only remembered as Scrooge's first employer, and how kindly he treated his employees (contrasting how poorly Scrooge treats his), and that's it. All of this other business with Fezziwig (and Jorkin, for that matter) is an invention of the producers of this film.
Second - we are not shown what happens to Fezziwig. Earlier in the film Jorkin talks to him about selling and that he'll never get a better price, but Fezziwig says no, he wants to stay on 'to preserve a way of life, that one knew, and loved.' We see that Scrooge and Marley eventually bought him out, apparently a hostile takeover. But it is incorrect to assume Fezziwig was left penniless. We don't see Fezziwig on the street, he is in a carriage. The real loss here is that his 'way of life' is over, the 'little happy world' he created, how kind he was to his employees. We see that when Scrooge keeps on a staff member but lowers his wage. But Fezziwig still got paid for the business he sold to Scrooge and Marley. Whether he uses that capital to start another business or to retire, we don't know, but he is not left a pauper. -
novastar_6 — 10 years ago(November 16, 2015 04:14 PM)
He does himself far worse damage than he does to anyone else.
And yet he's directly responsible for Tiny Tim dying in an unaltered future. And there's no telling how many other deaths both he and Marley were responsible for in their treatment of their fellow men, who they might have helped who instead starved to death or froze to death while they sat on their money always scheming to rake in more. It goes back to that saying about all that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, they could've done so much, they chose not to, they only looked out for themselves and everyone around them paid the price for it.