Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
Martin
I think it was the Russian philosopher Berdyaev who exploded the rationalisations about free will but left the principle intact. We become less than human if choice is removed. The journey from free will to depraved choices to the doctrines of Hell is distinctly uncomfortable of course. Would heaven be heaven if vicious “dogs in the manger” were free to wander around? It would hardly be a place of no more suffering and no more pain since not all of the former things would have passed away.
I think it was the Russian philosopher Berdyaev who exploded the rationalisations about free will but left the principle intact. We become less than human if choice is removed. The journey from free will to depraved choices to the doctrines of Hell is distinctly uncomfortable of course. Would heaven be heaven if vicious “dogs in the manger” were free to wander around? It would hardly be a place of no more suffering and no more pain since not all of the former things would have passed away.
That doesn't mean we need to be having a dog meat festival boiling the buggers alive just outside. Knowing such a thing was going on would equally make it not a place of suffering and pain, unless we also believe we will lose our empathy and theory of mind.
My universalism does not require that evil be given a place in heaven. It offers rather an endless opportunity to be set free from our own evil.
And many people cannot believe a corpse can come back to life after three days.
I find it damned near impossible.
Of course it's impossible. That's what a miracle is. Like water turning in to good wine.
Problem is it's circular. Christ can rise from the dead because he is the Son of God. How do we know he's the Son of God? Because he rose from the dead.
Fine by me. I want it to be true. That comes first. If you were in the incarnation business, how would you prove it?
And many people cannot believe a corpse can come back to life after three days.
I find it damned near impossible.
Of course it's impossible. That's what a miracle is. Like water turning in to good wine.
Problem is it's circular. Christ can rise from the dead because he is the Son of God. How do we know he's the Son of God? Because he rose from the dead.
Fine by me. I want it to be true. That comes first. If you were in the incarnation business, how would you prove it?
Popping back from time to time? Making your presence known to those who try to be your followers?
But that's scarcely the point.
What I want to be true doesn't make the fallacious logic less fallacious.
And many people cannot believe a corpse can come back to life after three days.
I find it damned near impossible.
Of course it's impossible. That's what a miracle is. Like water turning in to good wine.
Problem is it's circular. Christ can rise from the dead because he is the Son of God. How do we know he's the Son of God? Because he rose from the dead.
Who on this thread has made that argument? Names good enough; no need to post links.
And many people cannot believe a corpse can come back to life after three days.
I find it damned near impossible.
Of course it's impossible. That's what a miracle is. Like water turning in to good wine.
Problem is it's circular. Christ can rise from the dead because he is the Son of God. How do we know he's the Son of God? Because he rose from the dead.
Fine by me. I want it to be true. That comes first. If you were in the incarnation business, how would you prove it?
Popping back from time to time? Making your presence known to those who try to be your followers?
But that's scarcely the point.
What I want to be true doesn't make the fallacious logic less fallacious.
No sign shall be given except... I don't use fallacious logic. Knowingly.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Martin
So you are OK with protecting the inhabitants of heaven from dogs in the manger, just not OK with roasting them? That's progress of a kind in this dialogue.
The other Orthodox notion I like is that the punishment is self-inflicted. A conscious decision to escape the frying pan for the fire. Heck, I don't like the idea that eternal punishment is God inflicted. I'm sure we can agree on that. I suspect there is a lot of metaphor going on about stuff which by its very nature we know very little.
@Telford;
Because for the time being H/She is OK with the world having, in no particular order: weather, physical laws, flawed human nature, neural pathways that are experienced as pain or fear, etc etc.
But there will be a new heaven and a new earth and every tear will be wiped away. And I expect even the memory of pain will be erased. And there won't be room for anything we might call hell.
But I suspect that any contemporary view of Hell must be eschatological not transient. Hell is about final outcomes.
I think there is a school of liberal Christian thought that says this life is all there is for all of us. Which probably goes hand in hand with a belief that the resurrection of Christ was not an actual bodily one.
And I'd say this is a logical outworking of @Martin54's position that Scripture is so enculturated and so human as to provide no reliable guide to anything beyond the human authors' primitive and personal perception of events.
I can't rule this 'universal annihilation' position out, but then I'm quite strongly attached to a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
At what point do these alleged "liberals" admit that they've liberalised themselves out of Christianity altogether?
It's not your call.
I know, and I understand the practical and theological reasons why it's not, but sometimes struggle to understand what folk can see in Christianity without the risen Christ. It's not like the Church is an attractive organisation in its own right.
Risen Christ =/= physically resurrected Christ. You can believe he's alive without believing in resuscitated corpses.
How? Why?
How? Same way people into sceances and wotnot think their deceased relatives are alive.
Why? Same reasons generally given for believing the resurrection occurred - transformation of the apostles from scared minor cultists to founders of a world religion.
Nothing else would work. Nothing else would transform a bunch of guys like their compelling leader being tortured to death in front of their eyes - those that hid in the crowd apart from John - and being fine three days later. So if He wasn't, what worked? His body unnaturally disappeared and a vision replaced it? If you say so.
It's why I like the Orthodox view that Heaven and Hell are one place. That which is love and comfort for us may indeed be pain and fire for others. Because that is what irrecomciled emnity does.
The big problem I have with this notion is that suppose you are in Heaven, standing next to (metaphorically, of course) your wife, husband, child, sibling or close friend, who is in Hell, writhing in eternal torment. Would you be enjoying the bliss of eternal life, joining in the song of the angels, or would you be screaming at God to show mercy to to a creature He made and presumably loves? Would your dissent from the state of things push you into torment as well? Most people can't bear to watch an animal suffer, could they do so for their loved ones?
I have no problem with believing in a hell which is remedial and in which there is the infinite possibility of healing and release. I also believe that nobody will reject God for eternity and that all creation will return to its source rather than be eternally sundered.
It's implicit in the "early church proves the resurrection" reasoning.
Nothing proves the resurrection. Nobody here says that. How could we? I certainly say that the early seven consensus letters of Paul show a thriving eastern Roman Empire church built on still living, first circle contacts of Jesus. I know of no non-coercive parallel in religion, politics that compares. None. Even remotely. If there is no God, then it was a conspiracy, the very best ever. A conspiracy that the Man Himself cooked up. Sorry, man himself. What a man!
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It's why I like the Orthodox view that Heaven and Hell are one place. That which is love and comfort for us may indeed be pain and fire for others. Because that is what irrecomciled emnity does.
The big problem I have with this notion is that suppose you are in Heaven, standing next to (metaphorically, of course) your wife, husband, child, sibling or close friend, who is in Hell, writhing in eternal torment. Would you be enjoying the bliss of eternal life, joining in the song of the angels, or would you be screaming at God to show mercy to to a creature He made and presumably loves? Would your dissent from the state of things push you into torment as well? Most people can't bear to watch an animal suffer, could they do so for their loved ones?
Its a concept. At its heart I think is the notion that it is the presence of God which creates either the love or the pain. And the pain is self-inflicted. I don't think you would be standing next to your loved one in the sense you describe. Their need to distance themselves from God would mean distancing from you. But even that involves pushing more literal truth into the concept than I'm comfortable with.
I have no problem with believing in a hell which is remedial and in which there is the infinite possibility of healing and release. I also believe that nobody will reject God for eternity and that all creation will return to its source rather than be eternally sundered.
I think Lamb Chopped said earlier that for her Hell was essentially some kind of Purgatory which is an idea I relate to. And I hope your second sentence is true.
Its a concept. At its heart I think is the notion that it is the presence of God which creates either the love or the pain. And the pain is self-inflicted. I don't think you would be standing next to your loved one in the sense you describe. Their need to distance themselves from God would mean distancing from you. But even that involves pushing more literal truth into the concept than I'm comfortable with.
If I knew my mother was suffering horribly in Samarkand, that wouldn't make it any better than if she were suffering horribly next to me.
It's implicit in the "early church proves the resurrection" reasoning.
I wouldn't think so.
The resurrection itself rests on eyewitness and echoing historical effects (e.g. the transformation of the early believers, the establishment and rapid spread of the Christian church, the rather odd spectacle of this world's largest religion being based on the idea of a crucified God). In other words, it is to be judged as any other historic event.
Jesus' identity rests on the resurrection for their authority. He claimed multiple times that he would be raised. He tied his identity as the Son of Man (eschatological figure sent by God) to that fact. So if he was not raised (as he said he would be), then he was not in fact more than a fallible human being, and we needn't pay attention to anything else he said unless we want to (for example, we personally admire his morality or something).
If we have come this far (yes, he was raised; yes, he is the Son of Man sent by God), then we move to all his other claims, such as his identity with God, his claiming of God as his Father, his right both to judge and to forgive, and his promises of forgiveness, resurrection and everlasting life to those who trust in him. Those rest on his identity.
And of course every step along the way rests on the authenticity of the texts as faithful reports faithfully transmitted. (We judge that, if we have any sense, by the usual standards of history and textual science. And I can bore you silly going on and on and ON about the evidence for the New Testament text. Be safe, shoot me now.)
Barnabas, I wish I could say that Hell was a Purgatory. I meant to say that if a temporary Hell existed, it would be a de facto Purgatory, and personally I'd be all in favor of it. But nobody asked me when he set up the structure of reality...
The most I can say is that the text of Scripture warns us very seriously about a state of suffering that any sane person should want to avoid, and that it is in fact possible to avoid with God's help. And, of course, that God is both just and merciful, and has in fact laid down his own life to prevent anyone from reaching that state, which shows how serious he is about it. Further speculation is just that--speculation. And I really hate building doctrines on speculation.
@Telford;
Because for the time being H/She is OK with the world having, in no particular order: weather, physical laws, flawed human nature, neural pathways that are experienced as pain or fear, etc etc.
But there will be a new heaven and a new earth and every tear will be wiped away. And I expect even the memory of pain will be erased. And there won't be room for anything we might call hell.
But I suspect that any contemporary view of Hell must be eschatological not transient. Hell is about final outcomes.
I think there is a school of liberal Christian thought that says this life is all there is for all of us. Which probably goes hand in hand with a belief that the resurrection of Christ was not an actual bodily one.
And I'd say this is a logical outworking of @Martin54's position that Scripture is so enculturated and so human as to provide no reliable guide to anything beyond the human authors' primitive and personal perception of events.
I can't rule this 'universal annihilation' position out, but then I'm quite strongly attached to a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
At what point do these alleged "liberals" admit that they've liberalised themselves out of Christianity altogether?
It's not your call.
I know, and I understand the practical and theological reasons why it's not, but sometimes struggle to understand what folk can see in Christianity without the risen Christ. It's not like the Church is an attractive organisation in its own right.
Risen Christ =/= physically resurrected Christ. You can believe he's alive without believing in resuscitated corpses.
How? Why?
How? Same way people into sceances and wotnot think their deceased relatives are alive.
Why? Same reasons generally given for believing the resurrection occurred - transformation of the apostles from scared minor cultists to founders of a world religion.
Nothing else would work. Nothing else would transform a bunch of guys like their compelling leader being tortured to death in front of their eyes - those that hid in the crowd apart from John - and being fine three days later. So if He wasn't, what worked? His body unnaturally disappeared and a vision replaced it? If you say so.
Three days? More like 36 hours
Riiiigggghhht. Yeah we ALLLLL know about inclusive and exclusive and what Jesus Himself said re Jonah, you know, the only sign we'll ever get, and whether He was being literal or not and a lot more besides and how to factor three days from Friday night to Sunday morning. I'm a Wednesday man myself.
I think this is the first thread ever in which I find myself floating more liberal ideas than @Martin54...
How so? That there was no bodily resurrection? Then there was no resurrection and there will be no more. There was a conjuring trick with bones, or there was a Jewish humanist conspiracy.
I think it was the Russian philosopher Berdyaev who exploded the rationalisations about free will but left the principle intact. We become less than human if choice is removed. The journey from free will to depraved choices to the doctrines of Hell is distinctly uncomfortable of course. Would heaven be heaven if vicious “dogs in the manger” were free to wander around? It would hardly be a place of no more suffering and no more pain since not all of the former things would have passed away.
What makes us human is our laughably pathetic self importance, our egos on stilts. Although I knew a macaw like that. What choice? How can there be suffering, pain, viciousness in heaven? How can anyone be hurt in any way? But yeah, I can see how it might take a while for many, most if not all of us to be re-integrated in to society, that we may need lonnnnnnng walks with Jesus to be healed, therapied, de- and re-constructed; educated, developed from the half of humanity that was never born or otherwise died pre-verbal.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
A nice Purgatorial argument, Martin. You get some of the flavour of that in 'The Great Divorce".
Sorry I misunderstood you a little. Lamb Chopped. I missed a week Hosting through ill health and have been doing a lot of fast catch up reading.
mousethief, I agree. Where I am probably both unorthodox and unOrthodox is over punishment. I don't buy into Hell fire except as a metaphor for separation from God. Whether eternal or for a period allowing for change of heart and reconciliation. The challenge to change one's heart can be painful enough without the need for hot irons as an 'encouragement'.
New England Calvinism + Enlightenment + Second Great Awakening = People in 1830s who don't believe in hell and who have overlapping theology with KarlLB.
More or less.
What's your point?
What's yours?
Well if nothing else my point might be that cultures that don’t know their history become pop cultures, trapped in a shallow and eternal Now.
Even ships of fools need deep water to sail on, and will run aground in the shallows.
I think Paul's Romans 7/8 argument is that bad people are bad because they do bad things. They are habituated into the wrong they do by living in a flawed world. It is, in effect, a moral infection, an inability to exercise free will, which, somewhat unfortunately to modern minds, he calls "the flesh" (sarx) , which, untreated, would lead to "death", which may or may not be metaphorical. But the essential point, to Paul, is that this is not how, God intended those afflicted to be, either collectively or individually. They might be healed in this life, by "free will" or their will might be so "diseased" that is incapable of responding, in which case healing will be the destruction of the sarx, which will (I believe Paul implies) happens at the moment of physical death. The point being that there is no loss of personhood, just the freeing of the person to fulfil the potential which they were `predestined“ to have. It will, in effect, be the restoration of free will.
I should have said apocatastasis, if you will, the Zoroastrian realization picked up by Dr. Lucas and Orthodoxy, particularly by universalist contrarian existentialist Bedyaev (my new hero!).
I think this is the first thread ever in which I find myself floating more liberal ideas than @Martin54...
How so? That there was no bodily resurrection? Then there was no resurrection and there will be no more. There was a conjuring trick with bones, or there was a Jewish humanist conspiracy.
I find it puzzling that you're sure about a bodily resurrection and so sure that Hell is just a primitive superstitious projection. That's probably my problem more than yours, but at present I can't manage to join those dots the way you do.
I think this is the first thread ever in which I find myself floating more liberal ideas than @Martin54...
How so? That there was no bodily resurrection? Then there was no resurrection and there will be no more. There was a conjuring trick with bones, or there was a Jewish humanist conspiracy.
I find it puzzling that you're sure about a bodily resurrection and so sure that Hell is just a primitive superstitious projection. That's probably my problem more than yours, but at present I can't manage to join those dots the way you do.
I sympathize. But the categories are infinitely separated. If God, then bodily resurrection. Hell? Uh? What?
If God, then He is as He is, as revealed in creation which has a transcendent level. Visible creation reveals Him as powerful, instantiating, patient, humble, acceptant - Zen - fecund, empowering, tolerant and all that goes with that. How much more in the transcendent? Face to face. Bodily and better.
New England Calvinism + Enlightenment + Second Great Awakening = People in 1830s who don't believe in hell and who have overlapping theology with KarlLB.
More or less.
What's your point?
What's yours?
Well if nothing else my point might be that cultures that don’t know their history become pop cultures, trapped in a shallow and eternal Now.
Even ships of fools need deep water to sail on, and will run aground in the shallows.
Why bless your heart, like Francis Schaeffer you've come to save us from ourselves in your humility!
I can think of nothing better than an eternal bike ride along the infinite canal tow path of the eternal Now.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
Martin
Berdyaev is interesting, particularly in his philosophical and spiritual approach to freedom, and so in the context of this discussion is the concept of restoration.
The contrarian aspects of my instinctive nonconformist outlook resonate quite strongly with the idea of Purgatory as a place of restoration, continuing after death for the sake of those still in need of personal restoration. I like the idea of not just second chances but an infinite series of chances.
The vignette from The Great Divorce which I discover on reflection has had a powerful influence on me is this one. A dialogue between an angelic figure and a person obsessed, afflicted, by a destructive possessiveness, deeply damaging to others as well as herself. The gentle angel offers to kill the possessiveness in order to free the person. The person needs to be purged of a characteristic which cannot survive in heaven before she can enter into it. But, like an alcoholic, must choose the loss of the characteristic so embedded in her personality that it has almost become her.
I guess that reveals the dilemma for me. It would be good to believe that all such restorative journeys have a happy ending. That is at the heart of universal salvation I think. But will they? Human freedoms embody the possibility of continuing self destructive behaviours, often very damaging to others. That’s a truth of which we have daily proof.
@Barnabas62 the question for me is less whether all such journeys have a happy ending and more what a non-happy "ending" might reasonably consist in, both ethically and scripturally.
@demas, my concern is that history is written by the victors. It’s easy to assert that universalism was always a fringe ‘heresy’ in the church, and yes, of course, in the centuries after Augustine it evidently mostly disappeared from view. But earlier church history to me tells a different story. There was evidently a huge cultural shift as the predominant language of the church moved from Greek to Latin. There are a lot of different reasons why I find it persuasive that Universalism was totally conventional in the first few centuries of the church. Influential theologians who made universalist statements, like the Gregories, Clement, and obviously Origen. In his time Origen wasn’t some fringe lunatic - he was the dominant theological voice of that period. His condemnation as a heretic came later and had nothing to do with his Universalism. Jerome and Augustine both stated that Universalism was prevalent, if not dominant in their time.
In terms of your statement that Hell necessarily deals with finality, well, again, in amongst (again predominantly Greek) early theologians, a purgatorial hell was standard teaching. Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen etc.
Broadly, there are two possibilities. Either
a) The earliest teachings of the church were damnationist, then a few centuries later lots of Greek theologians suddenly discovered Universalism, then after that as the more of the church became Latin-speaking, the church rediscovered its damnationist roots.
Or:
b) The earliest teachings of the church were Universalist, the Greek theologians continued that theme, but as the church spread and there were more Latin speakers, the church lost its Universalist roots and became damnationist, especially in the West, while the East became more nuanced.
(A) is often asserted. That, for example, Origen got his ideas from the pagans. But that’s an easy get out. Personally, I find (B) much more persuasive. I’m happy to concede that there were a range of (sometimes whacky) views tumbling round the church in the first few centuries (just as there are now). But I don’t find the assertion that Universalism was some minor heretical viewpoint that a few people held stands up to scrutiny. It was much, much more prevalent back then than a lot of modern conservatives would like to concede.
Why bless your heart, like Francis Schaeffer you've come to save us from ourselves in your humility!
I'm not here to save anyone. I had something I knew about, I thought it was kinda cool and relevant, I shared it.
I think it's fascinating that there once was a denomination which formally and overtly believed in Universal salvation. I find it interesting and relevant to the topic at hand.
They weren't just incarnations of some abstract Enlightenment. They were real people with differing, specific viewpoints. I think you would have liked them - they loved arguing (and often, it must be said, winding people up).
Very interesting stuff there from Barnabas, particularly "the characteristic so embedded in her personality". I'm reminded of Freud's repetition compulsion, whereby people keep reenacting some early psychodrama. There is some interesting later writing on the connection with remembering, baldly, that reenactment is a way of not remembering. As you say, these things may be dear possessions, however, it is possible with blood, sweat and tears, to let go of such stuff. However, it seems harsh to judge people who can't. The issue of will is obviously relevant, yet some people have hollowed out egos and will. What of them?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Good questions quetz. They bother me too. In terms of what we see it seems that the damage is too great to be healed. But maybe that is a form of pessimism?
There is a joke from within Brethrenism (yes some have a sense of humour) which comes to mind.
A new arrival in heaven is being given a tour of the ‘many mansions’ within which much joy can be seen. But as they pass one room, which has no doors and windows, the angelic guide makes a shushing gesture and they tiptoe past the enclosure, from which the sound of mournful singing and interminable prayers can be heard. “What’s that all about?” asks the newcomer. “Oh that’s the Brethren enclosure” answers the guide “they don’t think anyone else is here”.
@demas, my concern is that history is written by the victors. It’s easy to assert that universalism was always a fringe ‘heresy’ in the church, and yes, of course, in the centuries after Augustine it evidently mostly disappeared from view. But earlier church history to me tells a different story. There was evidently a huge cultural shift as the predominant language of the church moved from Greek to Latin. There are a lot of different reasons why I find it persuasive that Universalism was totally conventional in the first few centuries of the church. Influential theologians who made universalist statements, like the Gregories, Clement, and obviously Origen. In his time Origen wasn’t some fringe lunatic - he was the dominant theological voice of that period. His condemnation as a heretic came later and had nothing to do with his Universalism. Jerome and Augustine both stated that Universalism was prevalent, if not dominant in their time.
In terms of your statement that Hell necessarily deals with finality, well, again, in amongst (again predominantly Greek) early theologians, a purgatorial hell was standard teaching. Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen etc.
Broadly, there are two possibilities. Either
a) The earliest teachings of the church were damnationist, then a few centuries later lots of Greek theologians suddenly discovered Universalism, then after that as the more of the church became Latin-speaking, the church rediscovered its damnationist roots.
Or:
b) The earliest teachings of the church were Universalist, the Greek theologians continued that theme, but as the church spread and there were more Latin speakers, the church lost its Universalist roots and became damnationist, especially in the West, while the East became more nuanced.
(A) is often asserted. That, for example, Origen got his ideas from the pagans. But that’s an easy get out. Personally, I find (B) much more persuasive. I’m happy to concede that there were a range of (sometimes whacky) views tumbling round the church in the first few centuries (just as there are now). But I don’t find the assertion that Universalism was some minor heretical viewpoint that a few people held stands up to scrutiny. It was much, much more prevalent back then than a lot of modern conservatives would like to concede.
There's quite a bit to unpack there.
First off, happy to concede that "It was much, much more prevalent back then than a lot of modern conservatives would like to concede." I would put put personally as neither 'fringe heresy' nor 'the prevailing view'. Early Christianity was like a Cambrian explosion of theological viewpoints. Orthodoxy (and its flip side heresy) took a long time to be constructed and some issues were nailed down later than others.
I'm less inclined to go with the Latin vs Greek argument. It is possible to describe the later Greeks as 'nuanced' but they sure weren't overt universalists. The Platonic universalism of Origen et al didn't turn into a living tradition. Universalism failed in both East and West. Origin was condemned, and although the historical record is unclear whether his universalism was condemned with him, nevertheless it fell with him.
If I had to guess I might point to Origen being pre-Constantine. Not that I'm doing the usual ahistorical 'Blame Constantine' thing for all Christianity's woes, but as a sort of symbol. Maybe universalism is incompatible with a desire for Christianity to be a regulator of public morality. Certainly that is an accusation made against it by people who had such a desire. But I really don't know.
My comment about Hell being final in nature wasn't really about the concept as used by Origen et al but as it is used in mainstream Christian discourse nowadays. "Hell and heaven in Christian thought and mainstream tradition are shorthands for the final eschatological state of humanity." Origen's thought simply doesn't have 'Hell' in this sense. I was talking to Eutychus' wish for a re-expressed theology of Hell and why NOprophet_NØprofit's suggestion that hell be considered our suffering here and now wouldn't get him there.
I'm not sure how far all this gets us though. Does the early appearance of Universalist thought, its disappearance/suppression and then patchy re-emergence after the Reformation make it more or less convincing?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Well it took the church almost two millennia to move from slave owners should treat their slaves well to slave owning is intrinsically bad! And during that period there were always some who believed that slave owning was intrinsically bad. So I guess that was patchy too.
But I don’t think there has ever been a time when the doctrines of Hell didn’t provoke unease. A very understandable unease.
Good questions quetz. They bother me too. In terms of what we see it seems that the damage is too great to be healed. But maybe that is a form of pessimism?
There is a joke from within Brethrenism (yes some have a sense of humour) which comes to mind.
A new arrival in heaven is being given a tour of the ‘many mansions’ within which much joy can be seen. But as they pass one room, which has no doors and windows, the angelic guide makes a shushing gesture and they tiptoe past the enclosure, from which the sound of mournful singing and interminable prayers can be heard. “What’s that all about?” asks the newcomer. “Oh that’s the Brethren enclosure” answers the guide “they don’t think anyone else is here”.
Safe enclosures in heaven?
It's a joke in therapy how attached people are to their hang-ups. You do hear people say, don't take that away, it's been my constant companion. They also are nostalgic, they plunge me back into childhood, which I sorely miss, even or especially, the bad times, well some people do.
Barnabas, Eutychus, brothers and all other siblings.
We're neotenous maggots. All the genetic and subsequent depositions laid down in meat - and mind is meat - will be metabolized, refined, healed, fixed in the emergence from the chrysalis to the transcendent imago. As much as it can be. For a start. Furthermore, you can barely see the maggot in the imago. Especially sterile ones. For our endless lifecycle is further unlike any other: The adult doesn't breed. What will our finally free willed (bows to @Jolly Jape) adult desire, want to possess, in paradise having no meaningful gender agenda? It will want to know. It will want answers. Sooner or later. Most will blink in wonder. Foetal, infant minds, Neanderthal minds, Denisovan minds, pre-verbal minds, pre-behavioural modernity minds, child minds, Downs syndrome minds and every kind of enculturated mind. What of all the creatures that ever felt loss? That grieved? What can't be fixed in glorified wiring will be fixed in the ultimate therapy, will be dealt with, deconstructed and moved on from with new, unchained, uncharted, glorified minds in a glorified environment. As Father Thomas Byles prayed.
(And Eutychus, haven't you read The Hydrogen Sonata?)
in the centuries after Augustine it evidently mostly disappeared from view. But earlier church history to me tells a different story. There was evidently a huge cultural shift as the predominant language of the church moved from Greek to Latin.
I don't believe the predominant language of the church shifted until after the Arab conquests. If there was little attempt to translate Greek theologians into Latin from the fourth and fifth centuries onward I think there was even less attempt to translate in the other direction. If the Eastern church moved away from universalism it was probably not because the Latin church was doing so.
Barnabas, Eutychus, brothers and all other siblings.
We're neotenous maggots. All the genetic and subsequent depositions laid down in meat - and mind is meat - will be metabolized, refined, healed, fixed in the emergence from the chrysalis to the transcendent imago. As much as it can be. For a start. Furthermore, you can barely see the maggot in the imago. Especially sterile ones. For our endless lifecycle is further unlike any other: The adult doesn't breed. What will our finally free willed (bows to @Jolly Jape) adult desire, want to possess, in paradise having no meaningful gender agenda? It will want to know. It will want answers. Sooner or later. Most will blink in wonder. Foetal, infant minds, Neanderthal minds, Denisovan minds, pre-verbal minds, pre-behavioural modernity minds, child minds, Downs syndrome minds and every kind of enculturated mind. What of all the creatures that ever felt loss? That grieved? What can't be fixed in glorified wiring will be fixed in the ultimate therapy, will be dealt with, deconstructed and moved on from with new, unchained, uncharted, glorified minds in a glorified environment. As Father Thomas Byles prayed.
(And Eutychus, haven't you read The Hydrogen Sonata?)
Is this Martin's longest and most obscure post EVER?
It surely warrants some sort of award...
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Still translating! Normally I "get" Martin (probably comes from long practice).
@Telford;
Because for the time being H/She is OK with the world having, in no particular order: weather, physical laws, flawed human nature, neural pathways that are experienced as pain or fear, etc etc.
But there will be a new heaven and a new earth and every tear will be wiped away. And I expect even the memory of pain will be erased. And there won't be room for anything we might call hell.
But I suspect that any contemporary view of Hell must be eschatological not transient. Hell is about final outcomes.
I think there is a school of liberal Christian thought that says this life is all there is for all of us. Which probably goes hand in hand with a belief that the resurrection of Christ was not an actual bodily one.
And I'd say this is a logical outworking of @Martin54's position that Scripture is so enculturated and so human as to provide no reliable guide to anything beyond the human authors' primitive and personal perception of events.
I can't rule this 'universal annihilation' position out, but then I'm quite strongly attached to a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
At what point do these alleged "liberals" admit that they've liberalised themselves out of Christianity altogether?
It's not your call.
I know, and I understand the practical and theological reasons why it's not, but sometimes struggle to understand what folk can see in Christianity without the risen Christ. It's not like the Church is an attractive organisation in its own right.
Risen Christ =/= physically resurrected Christ. You can believe he's alive without believing in resuscitated corpses.
How? Why?
How? Same way people into sceances and wotnot think their deceased relatives are alive.
Why? Same reasons generally given for believing the resurrection occurred - transformation of the apostles from scared minor cultists to founders of a world religion.
Nothing else would work. Nothing else would transform a bunch of guys like their compelling leader being tortured to death in front of their eyes - those that hid in the crowd apart from John - and being fine three days later. So if He wasn't, what worked? His body unnaturally disappeared and a vision replaced it? If you say so.
Three days? More like 36 hours
Riiiigggghhht. Yeah we ALLLLL know about inclusive and exclusive and what Jesus Himself said re Jonah, you know, the only sign we'll ever get, and whether He was being literal or not and a lot more besides and how to factor three days from Friday night to Sunday morning. I'm a Wednesday man myself.
We know hat he died about 6pm on the Friday just before it got dark and rose about 6am on the Sunday when it got light. That's 36 hours. I have no idea where you get 'Wednesday' from.
I think it was the Russian philosopher Berdyaev who exploded the rationalisations about free will but left the principle intact. We become less than human if choice is removed. The journey from free will to depraved choices to the doctrines of Hell is distinctly uncomfortable of course. Would heaven be heaven if vicious “dogs in the manger” were free to wander around? It would hardly be a place of no more suffering and no more pain since not all of the former things would have passed away.
My favorite Russian philosopher! The Orthodox believe (as do all Christians) that we are made in the image and likeness of God. We also believe those are two separatable things -- the image is still there but the likeness is darkened due to sin. We are less like God than Adam and Eve were, but we are still icons of the immaterial God. As such we retain the ability to choose, that being something intrinsic to God, and part of the image that we inherited at our creation.
@Telford;
Because for the time being H/She is OK with the world having, in no particular order: weather, physical laws, flawed human nature, neural pathways that are experienced as pain or fear, etc etc.
But there will be a new heaven and a new earth and every tear will be wiped away. And I expect even the memory of pain will be erased. And there won't be room for anything we might call hell.
But I suspect that any contemporary view of Hell must be eschatological not transient. Hell is about final outcomes.
I think there is a school of liberal Christian thought that says this life is all there is for all of us. Which probably goes hand in hand with a belief that the resurrection of Christ was not an actual bodily one.
And I'd say this is a logical outworking of @Martin54's position that Scripture is so enculturated and so human as to provide no reliable guide to anything beyond the human authors' primitive and personal perception of events.
I can't rule this 'universal annihilation' position out, but then I'm quite strongly attached to a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
At what point do these alleged "liberals" admit that they've liberalised themselves out of Christianity altogether?
It's not your call.
I know, and I understand the practical and theological reasons why it's not, but sometimes struggle to understand what folk can see in Christianity without the risen Christ. It's not like the Church is an attractive organisation in its own right.
Risen Christ =/= physically resurrected Christ. You can believe he's alive without believing in resuscitated corpses.
How? Why?
How? Same way people into sceances and wotnot think their deceased relatives are alive.
Why? Same reasons generally given for believing the resurrection occurred - transformation of the apostles from scared minor cultists to founders of a world religion.
Nothing else would work. Nothing else would transform a bunch of guys like their compelling leader being tortured to death in front of their eyes - those that hid in the crowd apart from John - and being fine three days later. So if He wasn't, what worked? His body unnaturally disappeared and a vision replaced it? If you say so.
Three days? More like 36 hours
Riiiigggghhht. Yeah we ALLLLL know about inclusive and exclusive and what Jesus Himself said re Jonah, you know, the only sign we'll ever get, and whether He was being literal or not and a lot more besides and how to factor three days from Friday night to Sunday morning. I'm a Wednesday man myself.
We know hat he died about 6pm on the Friday just before it got dark and rose about 6am on the Sunday when it got light. That's 36 hours. I have no idea where you get 'Wednesday' from.
@Telford;
Because for the time being H/She is OK with the world having, in no particular order: weather, physical laws, flawed human nature, neural pathways that are experienced as pain or fear, etc etc.
But there will be a new heaven and a new earth and every tear will be wiped away. And I expect even the memory of pain will be erased. And there won't be room for anything we might call hell.
But I suspect that any contemporary view of Hell must be eschatological not transient. Hell is about final outcomes.
I think there is a school of liberal Christian thought that says this life is all there is for all of us. Which probably goes hand in hand with a belief that the resurrection of Christ was not an actual bodily one.
And I'd say this is a logical outworking of @Martin54's position that Scripture is so enculturated and so human as to provide no reliable guide to anything beyond the human authors' primitive and personal perception of events.
I can't rule this 'universal annihilation' position out, but then I'm quite strongly attached to a belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ.
At what point do these alleged "liberals" admit that they've liberalised themselves out of Christianity altogether?
It's not your call.
I know, and I understand the practical and theological reasons why it's not, but sometimes struggle to understand what folk can see in Christianity without the risen Christ. It's not like the Church is an attractive organisation in its own right.
Risen Christ =/= physically resurrected Christ. You can believe he's alive without believing in resuscitated corpses.
How? Why?
How? Same way people into sceances and wotnot think their deceased relatives are alive.
Why? Same reasons generally given for believing the resurrection occurred - transformation of the apostles from scared minor cultists to founders of a world religion.
Nothing else would work. Nothing else would transform a bunch of guys like their compelling leader being tortured to death in front of their eyes - those that hid in the crowd apart from John - and being fine three days later. So if He wasn't, what worked? His body unnaturally disappeared and a vision replaced it? If you say so.
Three days? More like 36 hours
Riiiigggghhht. Yeah we ALLLLL know about inclusive and exclusive and what Jesus Himself said re Jonah, you know, the only sign we'll ever get, and whether He was being literal or not and a lot more besides and how to factor three days from Friday night to Sunday morning. I'm a Wednesday man myself.
We know hat he died about 6pm on the Friday just before it got dark and rose about 6am on the Sunday when it got light. That's 36 hours. I have no idea where you get 'Wednesday' from.
Comments
I think it was the Russian philosopher Berdyaev who exploded the rationalisations about free will but left the principle intact. We become less than human if choice is removed. The journey from free will to depraved choices to the doctrines of Hell is distinctly uncomfortable of course. Would heaven be heaven if vicious “dogs in the manger” were free to wander around? It would hardly be a place of no more suffering and no more pain since not all of the former things would have passed away.
That doesn't mean we need to be having a dog meat festival boiling the buggers alive just outside. Knowing such a thing was going on would equally make it not a place of suffering and pain, unless we also believe we will lose our empathy and theory of mind.
My universalism does not require that evil be given a place in heaven. It offers rather an endless opportunity to be set free from our own evil.
Fine by me. I want it to be true. That comes first. If you were in the incarnation business, how would you prove it?
Popping back from time to time? Making your presence known to those who try to be your followers?
But that's scarcely the point.
What I want to be true doesn't make the fallacious logic less fallacious.
Who on this thread has made that argument? Names good enough; no need to post links.
No sign shall be given except... I don't use fallacious logic. Knowingly.
So you are OK with protecting the inhabitants of heaven from dogs in the manger, just not OK with roasting them? That's progress of a kind in this dialogue.
The other Orthodox notion I like is that the punishment is self-inflicted. A conscious decision to escape the frying pan for the fire. Heck, I don't like the idea that eternal punishment is God inflicted. I'm sure we can agree on that. I suspect there is a lot of metaphor going on about stuff which by its very nature we know very little.
Let's hope so
Three days? More like 36 hours
The big problem I have with this notion is that suppose you are in Heaven, standing next to (metaphorically, of course) your wife, husband, child, sibling or close friend, who is in Hell, writhing in eternal torment. Would you be enjoying the bliss of eternal life, joining in the song of the angels, or would you be screaming at God to show mercy to to a creature He made and presumably loves? Would your dissent from the state of things push you into torment as well? Most people can't bear to watch an animal suffer, could they do so for their loved ones?
I have no problem with believing in a hell which is remedial and in which there is the infinite possibility of healing and release. I also believe that nobody will reject God for eternity and that all creation will return to its source rather than be eternally sundered.
Nothing proves the resurrection. Nobody here says that. How could we? I certainly say that the early seven consensus letters of Paul show a thriving eastern Roman Empire church built on still living, first circle contacts of Jesus. I know of no non-coercive parallel in religion, politics that compares. None. Even remotely. If there is no God, then it was a conspiracy, the very best ever. A conspiracy that the Man Himself cooked up. Sorry, man himself. What a man!
Its a concept. At its heart I think is the notion that it is the presence of God which creates either the love or the pain. And the pain is self-inflicted. I don't think you would be standing next to your loved one in the sense you describe. Their need to distance themselves from God would mean distancing from you. But even that involves pushing more literal truth into the concept than I'm comfortable with.
I think Lamb Chopped said earlier that for her Hell was essentially some kind of Purgatory which is an idea I relate to. And I hope your second sentence is true.
If I knew my mother was suffering horribly in Samarkand, that wouldn't make it any better than if she were suffering horribly next to me.
I wouldn't think so.
The resurrection itself rests on eyewitness and echoing historical effects (e.g. the transformation of the early believers, the establishment and rapid spread of the Christian church, the rather odd spectacle of this world's largest religion being based on the idea of a crucified God). In other words, it is to be judged as any other historic event.
Jesus' identity rests on the resurrection for their authority. He claimed multiple times that he would be raised. He tied his identity as the Son of Man (eschatological figure sent by God) to that fact. So if he was not raised (as he said he would be), then he was not in fact more than a fallible human being, and we needn't pay attention to anything else he said unless we want to (for example, we personally admire his morality or something).
If we have come this far (yes, he was raised; yes, he is the Son of Man sent by God), then we move to all his other claims, such as his identity with God, his claiming of God as his Father, his right both to judge and to forgive, and his promises of forgiveness, resurrection and everlasting life to those who trust in him. Those rest on his identity.
And of course every step along the way rests on the authenticity of the texts as faithful reports faithfully transmitted. (We judge that, if we have any sense, by the usual standards of history and textual science. And I can bore you silly going on and on and ON about the evidence for the New Testament text. Be safe, shoot me now.)
The most I can say is that the text of Scripture warns us very seriously about a state of suffering that any sane person should want to avoid, and that it is in fact possible to avoid with God's help. And, of course, that God is both just and merciful, and has in fact laid down his own life to prevent anyone from reaching that state, which shows how serious he is about it. Further speculation is just that--speculation. And I really hate building doctrines on speculation.
Riiiigggghhht. Yeah we ALLLLL know about inclusive and exclusive and what Jesus Himself said re Jonah, you know, the only sign we'll ever get, and whether He was being literal or not and a lot more besides and how to factor three days from Friday night to Sunday morning. I'm a Wednesday man myself.
How so? That there was no bodily resurrection? Then there was no resurrection and there will be no more. There was a conjuring trick with bones, or there was a Jewish humanist conspiracy.
What makes us human is our laughably pathetic self importance, our egos on stilts. Although I knew a macaw like that. What choice? How can there be suffering, pain, viciousness in heaven? How can anyone be hurt in any way? But yeah, I can see how it might take a while for many, most if not all of us to be re-integrated in to society, that we may need lonnnnnnng walks with Jesus to be healed, therapied, de- and re-constructed; educated, developed from the half of humanity that was never born or otherwise died pre-verbal.
Sorry I misunderstood you a little. Lamb Chopped. I missed a week Hosting through ill health and have been doing a lot of fast catch up reading.
mousethief, I agree. Where I am probably both unorthodox and unOrthodox is over punishment. I don't buy into Hell fire except as a metaphor for separation from God. Whether eternal or for a period allowing for change of heart and reconciliation. The challenge to change one's heart can be painful enough without the need for hot irons as an 'encouragement'.
Well if nothing else my point might be that cultures that don’t know their history become pop cultures, trapped in a shallow and eternal Now.
Even ships of fools need deep water to sail on, and will run aground in the shallows.
I sympathize. But the categories are infinitely separated. If God, then bodily resurrection. Hell? Uh? What?
If God, then He is as He is, as revealed in creation which has a transcendent level. Visible creation reveals Him as powerful, instantiating, patient, humble, acceptant - Zen - fecund, empowering, tolerant and all that goes with that. How much more in the transcendent? Face to face. Bodily and better.
Jesus saves.
Why bless your heart, like Francis Schaeffer you've come to save us from ourselves in your humility!
I can think of nothing better than an eternal bike ride along the infinite canal tow path of the eternal Now.
What deeps do you have for us, prey?
Berdyaev is interesting, particularly in his philosophical and spiritual approach to freedom, and so in the context of this discussion is the concept of restoration.
The contrarian aspects of my instinctive nonconformist outlook resonate quite strongly with the idea of Purgatory as a place of restoration, continuing after death for the sake of those still in need of personal restoration. I like the idea of not just second chances but an infinite series of chances.
The vignette from The Great Divorce which I discover on reflection has had a powerful influence on me is this one. A dialogue between an angelic figure and a person obsessed, afflicted, by a destructive possessiveness, deeply damaging to others as well as herself. The gentle angel offers to kill the possessiveness in order to free the person. The person needs to be purged of a characteristic which cannot survive in heaven before she can enter into it. But, like an alcoholic, must choose the loss of the characteristic so embedded in her personality that it has almost become her.
I guess that reveals the dilemma for me. It would be good to believe that all such restorative journeys have a happy ending. That is at the heart of universal salvation I think. But will they? Human freedoms embody the possibility of continuing self destructive behaviours, often very damaging to others. That’s a truth of which we have daily proof.
In terms of your statement that Hell necessarily deals with finality, well, again, in amongst (again predominantly Greek) early theologians, a purgatorial hell was standard teaching. Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen etc.
Broadly, there are two possibilities. Either
a) The earliest teachings of the church were damnationist, then a few centuries later lots of Greek theologians suddenly discovered Universalism, then after that as the more of the church became Latin-speaking, the church rediscovered its damnationist roots.
Or:
b) The earliest teachings of the church were Universalist, the Greek theologians continued that theme, but as the church spread and there were more Latin speakers, the church lost its Universalist roots and became damnationist, especially in the West, while the East became more nuanced.
(A) is often asserted. That, for example, Origen got his ideas from the pagans. But that’s an easy get out. Personally, I find (B) much more persuasive. I’m happy to concede that there were a range of (sometimes whacky) views tumbling round the church in the first few centuries (just as there are now). But I don’t find the assertion that Universalism was some minor heretical viewpoint that a few people held stands up to scrutiny. It was much, much more prevalent back then than a lot of modern conservatives would like to concede.
I think it's fascinating that there once was a denomination which formally and overtly believed in Universal salvation. I find it interesting and relevant to the topic at hand.
They weren't just incarnations of some abstract Enlightenment. They were real people with differing, specific viewpoints. I think you would have liked them - they loved arguing (and often, it must be said, winding people up).
There is a joke from within Brethrenism (yes some have a sense of humour) which comes to mind.
A new arrival in heaven is being given a tour of the ‘many mansions’ within which much joy can be seen. But as they pass one room, which has no doors and windows, the angelic guide makes a shushing gesture and they tiptoe past the enclosure, from which the sound of mournful singing and interminable prayers can be heard. “What’s that all about?” asks the newcomer. “Oh that’s the Brethren enclosure” answers the guide “they don’t think anyone else is here”.
Safe enclosures in heaven?
First off, happy to concede that "It was much, much more prevalent back then than a lot of modern conservatives would like to concede." I would put put personally as neither 'fringe heresy' nor 'the prevailing view'. Early Christianity was like a Cambrian explosion of theological viewpoints. Orthodoxy (and its flip side heresy) took a long time to be constructed and some issues were nailed down later than others.
I'm less inclined to go with the Latin vs Greek argument. It is possible to describe the later Greeks as 'nuanced' but they sure weren't overt universalists. The Platonic universalism of Origen et al didn't turn into a living tradition. Universalism failed in both East and West. Origin was condemned, and although the historical record is unclear whether his universalism was condemned with him, nevertheless it fell with him.
If I had to guess I might point to Origen being pre-Constantine. Not that I'm doing the usual ahistorical 'Blame Constantine' thing for all Christianity's woes, but as a sort of symbol. Maybe universalism is incompatible with a desire for Christianity to be a regulator of public morality. Certainly that is an accusation made against it by people who had such a desire. But I really don't know.
My comment about Hell being final in nature wasn't really about the concept as used by Origen et al but as it is used in mainstream Christian discourse nowadays. "Hell and heaven in Christian thought and mainstream tradition are shorthands for the final eschatological state of humanity." Origen's thought simply doesn't have 'Hell' in this sense. I was talking to Eutychus' wish for a re-expressed theology of Hell and why NOprophet_NØprofit's suggestion that hell be considered our suffering here and now wouldn't get him there.
I'm not sure how far all this gets us though. Does the early appearance of Universalist thought, its disappearance/suppression and then patchy re-emergence after the Reformation make it more or less convincing?
But I don’t think there has ever been a time when the doctrines of Hell didn’t provoke unease. A very understandable unease.
It's a joke in therapy how attached people are to their hang-ups. You do hear people say, don't take that away, it's been my constant companion. They also are nostalgic, they plunge me back into childhood, which I sorely miss, even or especially, the bad times, well some people do.
We're neotenous maggots. All the genetic and subsequent depositions laid down in meat - and mind is meat - will be metabolized, refined, healed, fixed in the emergence from the chrysalis to the transcendent imago. As much as it can be. For a start. Furthermore, you can barely see the maggot in the imago. Especially sterile ones. For our endless lifecycle is further unlike any other: The adult doesn't breed. What will our finally free willed (bows to @Jolly Jape) adult desire, want to possess, in paradise having no meaningful gender agenda? It will want to know. It will want answers. Sooner or later. Most will blink in wonder. Foetal, infant minds, Neanderthal minds, Denisovan minds, pre-verbal minds, pre-behavioural modernity minds, child minds, Downs syndrome minds and every kind of enculturated mind. What of all the creatures that ever felt loss? That grieved? What can't be fixed in glorified wiring will be fixed in the ultimate therapy, will be dealt with, deconstructed and moved on from with new, unchained, uncharted, glorified minds in a glorified environment. As Father Thomas Byles prayed.
(And Eutychus, haven't you read The Hydrogen Sonata?)
Is this Martin's longest and most obscure post EVER?
It surely warrants some sort of award...
But it's a good thought...and (hopefully) right...
We know hat he died about 6pm on the Friday just before it got dark and rose about 6am on the Sunday when it got light. That's 36 hours. I have no idea where you get 'Wednesday' from.
I am chuffed that you regard me as being wise.
My favorite Russian philosopher! The Orthodox believe (as do all Christians) that we are made in the image and likeness of God. We also believe those are two separatable things -- the image is still there but the likeness is darkened due to sin. We are less like God than Adam and Eve were, but we are still icons of the immaterial God. As such we retain the ability to choose, that being something intrinsic to God, and part of the image that we inherited at our creation.
Where do you get the Friday from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday
Jesus said that he would rise of the 3rd day. Paul wrote that he rose on the 3rd day. This is basic