# Heaven and Hell



## Cabelaz (Apr 5, 2020)

So today I was reading an article about this schoolgirl named Junko Furuta.

She was kidnapped and held in the home of another teenage boy, and was:

Raped 400 times by 100 different men, forced to eat and drink her urine and cockroaches, tied to the ceiling and used as a punching bag, had her nails, teeth, and left nipple ripped out by pliers, I kid you not, they also shoved lightbulbs and lit fireworks up her ass too. Finally when they were done with her, she got shoved in a drum barrel and disposed of. When they found the body, she was also pregnant.

The 4 boys got off free due their Yakuza connections, and only spent about a year in prison.

After reading this, my instinctive response was: 'I hope they burn in hell." But then I stopped and pondered, are abstract theories like Heaven and Hell just made up to make us feel good about situations and give us closure? Do we fear that crimes may go unpunished, and do we fear that doing good is not rewarded?

So I guess my question is, are Heaven and Hell just products of the human mind to attempt to make ourselves feel better about ourselves?


----------



## kūhaku (Apr 6, 2020)

I think so, similar to religion. Hell is a way to create fear in the masses against committing crimes, or reassurance when they are committed. Heaven is a goal to strive to and it keeps most people in check and moral.

Even if I’m not religious, I still thinkthese certainly aren’t bad things, religion is a helpful glue that can keep society together, whether you believe in one or not. It keeps people largely moral.

Most if not all great civilizations had religious backbones and I think things like heaven and hell are some of the major parts of it. They are the reward and punishment for living your life, so hell is the ultimate threat to people.

George Carlin illustrates the absurdity of it in this clip.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 6, 2020)

I'm personally religious but examining this from a secular view, I think a God or at least a higher moral force is requisite for human societal functioning.  At the end of the day humans require some absolute power that they have no way to bribe, overpower, or workaround in some fashion or else they will actively seek out ways to get around any moral enforcement, and since human moral enforcement is fallible, they will often succeed in doing so.


----------



## DragoonSierra (Apr 6, 2020)

Duel 1

LET'S ROCK!


----------



## keyboredsm4shthe2nd (Apr 6, 2020)

Maybe. But that's just my feeble human brain clinging desperately to the idea that there's justice beyond human comprehension (call it what you like, equilibrium, the Universe, God, karma) because those goddamn mad dogs deserved to have their brains blown out along with those Ukranian mainiacs (which... lol, were neo-nazis despite not being the correct kind of white)


----------



## DecimatedFerret (Apr 6, 2020)

DragoonSierra said:


> Duel 1
> 
> LET'S ROCK!


Ah fuck, beat me to it.


----------



## Lord of the Large Pants (Apr 6, 2020)

Heaven and hell in the sort of "pop religion" sense are mostly inventions. Things like disembodied souls going off somewhere in the sky, or people burning eternally while being poked with pitchforks, aren't really supported by Jewish or Christian texts (can't speak for Islam, and eastern religions have a radically different concept of the spirit world altogether). A lot of it comes out of Plato, Dante, and the human mind being a perpetual idol factory.

That's not necessarily to say there's no such thing as an afterlife or ultimate justice. To give one example, the earliest Jews had no developed picture of an afterlife. But as they thought about it, they realized that if there's a God who created a good world in the beginning, and if this God is a god of justice, there must be some kind existence afterward, and so they developed the idea of physical resurrection. And if their premises are correct, then so is their conclusion. So it really comes down to what kind of god you believe in, if any.

You might check out The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. It's rather short and there are plenty of free texts and audio books available. It's an exploration of heaven and hell told in the form of fiction, a bit like The Divine Comedy, but with way less self important wankery. Lewis makes no attempt to say his ideas are perfectly accurate, only to paint a picture. I think he's not terribly far off.


----------



## The Last Stand (Apr 6, 2020)

Atheist time. 
You rot in the ground. 
There.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 6, 2020)

Its an interesting question. The Biblical Heaven and Hell are described much differently than how most people understand the ideas today. The gospels explicitly make clear that the descriptions of both concepts are allegorical as humans would not be able to understand them as they actually are. Even then much of what the Bible says goes against the modern view of the two concepts. That said, for the modern view of heaven you could just substitute its mention with "Earth 2" and it would be decently accurate. The Biblical Hell is described much differently from how it is now understood. 

 I could go on for a long time but about this but the most notable point  in my opinion is that the original gospels used the Greek word aión (where we get the word aeon) to describe the time spent in hell. An aión is a finite time though. The modern equivalent would be something like a zeitgeist or age in the sense of say "age of enlightenment". It isn't until the latin translations of the Roman church which used the word aeternus that Hell began being preached as eternal damnation. That probably isn't a coincidence. Of the churches established in first few centuries of Christianity, only the Roman church taught eternal damnation. It also raises a very interesting point. In Revelations, God lets Satan out of hell after 1000 years. How bad do you need to be to deserve more time in Hell than Satan? 

I could cite a massive list of scriptures which show that all will *eventually* be saved but the strongest one is probably 1 Corinthians 15:22 - £For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." There are around 30 other passages that state it clearer but this section of 1 Corinthians is importantly from a much earlier Christian creed which over 95% of New Testament Historians agree was being taught shortly after the crucifixion. The atheist and foremost skeptic scholar in America Bart Ehrman puts this teaching 2 years after Jesus's death. We also know it was approved of by Peter, James, John and Paul. If not the clearest, its the most authoritative passage that says all are saved.  

That raises the question though, why are the modern views so different from what early Christianity taught?  Both the church and popular imagination have shaped how we view those ideas now.

 Firstly, there's the fact that the church as an institution wanted power. The best way to get even the most powerful of kings to bow to you is to say that he'll be damned if he doesn't. The best example of that is the relationship with the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire and especially Charlemagne. You see the power of the idea of damnation when one old guy in robes can get one the most powerful men in Europe to bend the knee with only the threat of hellfire. I also wouldn't discount the influence of St. Augustine. He developed the view of limited atonement. Essentially, he said that while Christ could have saved everybody through the crucifixion that he just decided to be a dick and didn't. Add both of those together and your Church becomes an elite group which nobody can defy without facing the ultimate consequence.   

Secondly, there's also a very twisted idea of Justice that most people have. Go anywhere on the internet that's talking about a pedophile and you'll mostly get a collection people writing out their torture fantasies. A lot of people just like the idea of really harsh judgement. Thinking that everybody who does wrong is inescapably tortured eternally by the most powerful being in existence is pretty much the peak of torture porn. I think this is what Op is getting at in his post and in this sense I agree.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Apr 6, 2020)

When I think of Hell, I remember these quotes.

First, the overused Sartre quote, "Hell is other people,"

Then a little known Robert Crumb quote that follows up on that, "Hell is also yourself."

Finally, a quote from the Buddhist monk Shinran, "Hell is my only home."

Everything is Hell. Sometimes it's fun. Other times it's shit. It's okay though, because when I die it will be nothing but sweet eternal oblivion.


----------



## Dick Pooman (Apr 6, 2020)

Jim Jefferies had a good bit about the idea of Hell. It was pretty much the assumed premise of Hell being a place where you're tortured for all eternity, when in reality you're probably one of Satan's boys if you do enough bad shit to go there in the first place.


----------



## Robert James (Apr 6, 2020)

Obligatory Fidora Tip.



Spoiler: Theology Sperging



You're dealing with a pretty heavy level of theology here so I'll try to break it down in bites size chunks so you can understand the christian mentality behind it.

First let's take care of the concept of good and evil and why god let's bad shit happen we have free will, it's what separates us from all of god's other creations. In fact it is one of the reasons the angels rebelled as we were so easy to disobey god by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it only took a snake saying how dare god tell you what to do to brake it. Now several times god has interfered with humanity and punished us but when he does that it's more of a whipping the slate clean or nuking a village and considering anyone in said village complicit. This is why god flooded the world and salted two cities in his eyes the humans knew that they were doing wrong and got rid of them. This changes when Jesus comes along and convinces his papa that we aren't evil we are just retarded. God understands and we are allowed to be saved and eventually resurrected through jesus. After that god takes a more hands off approach and allows us to learn and change ourselves to be better people, I mean we proved the Lucifer right by being hopless degenerates but that may be why we don't have as many holy interventions anymore.

Now let's move on to heaven and hell and why hell seems to be temporary, through most of the bible the devil/ other demons play a more passive role with only a few being straight antagonistic. They work by convincing humans to do wrong since their entire rebellion was proving that we can easily be led down the wrong path. This is why when you hear about deals with the devil the devil doesn't outright posses you and do what it wants. This is where hell comes in the demons already have their hands on you and have convinced you to avoid gods light so they can do whatever they want to you and 10/10 times it's some form of torture because you are the reason they got their wings broken. If you accept gods love and repent the allmighty can seperate you from the demons but most people will never change who they are. It's the equivilant of forgiving a gamblers debt if he changes himself and will not only never gamble again but do what he can to prevent others from gambling. This is why you can eventually redeem yourself from hell but unlike most atheist jokes it isn't as easy as saying I believe in Jesus. You need to repent you need to understand what you did wrong and honestly change so theoretically the guys mentioned can eventually return to gods life and be let into heaven but only after accepting responsibility and changing themselves not only to avoid committing such depravity but do whatever they can to make up for it.



The reality is Christianity has lost a lot of it's backbone and has decided to let God do the punishment. No more than a hundred years ago the mentality wouldn't of been I hope they rot in hell but would have been let's find these fucks torture and kill them and maybe their families as well. Issue is as Christians have gone softer they have had to change their preaching from "commit sin get put in the bin" to "All can be forgiven and the worst people are punished by god"  their is a heavier dependence on heaven and hell because we can't go around stoning whores and frankly humanity has gotten more depraved as time goes on. You have to preach forgiveness because most people are living pretty sinful lives, Shit I know people who turned atheist because the church told them cooming was bad, and you won't get many people in the seats if you tell them they have to earn it.

So to answer your question Heaven and Hell aren't designed to be an easy way for us to believe justice was served but are becoming a heavier crutch since Christianity has decided to take a more passive role and can no longer dish out punishment.  Shit we have a hard enough time giving the death penalty to criminals just as bad if not worse than these fucks so actively torturing or punishing people like this would be impossible we have to depend on our heavenly father.


We were given free will and it is childish to depend on God to do all the work for us but their is only so much we can do that is why we depend on god to dole out the punishment because we are too weak as a people to do it ourselves. It's effectivley pushing the buck to the big man and waiting till death to see if he did the job we couldn't.




Dick Pooman said:


> Jim Jefferies had a good bit about the idea of Hell. It was pretty much the assumed premise of Hell being a place where you're tortured for all eternity, when in reality you're probably one of Satan's boys if you do enough bad shit to go there in the first place.



The issue is that Devils don't work like that, I'll try not to get too spergy here but to make a long story short we are the reason devils have been shunned from gods light, we are the reason they are disfigured and deformed, we are the reason they have lost their purpose, we are the reason they had to betray their brother, and we are the reason they lost so many more of their brothers. To them we are nothing we are so much lesser to them but because of us they are forced to suffer such indignities. It be like if you stepped on an ant and because of it you get kicked out of your house and have one of your arms chopped of.  It doesn't matter what you do they will torture you because you are the reason they are in hell and this is the only way they can get their revenge not to mention it's the only thing that gives them purpose since god, who has the power to save their victims, does not which could be seen as passive approval.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 6, 2020)

kūhaku said:


> George Carlin illustrates the absurdity of it in this clip.


Nothing in the scripture is about god needing money. There are even verses in the bible that say to not donate unless you are giving gladly.

There is nothing absurd about turning someone you love away from you if they behave badly; one could easily argue that it's that person turning themselves away from you. After all, you might love your son or daughter, but if they start stealing your stuff and money for drugs, eventually throwing them out of the house is the right thing to do, even if you love them.


----------



## Horus (Apr 6, 2020)

Hell is, for lack of a better term, metaphysical separation from God, who is basically existence and consciousness itself.  The guys in the example may be absolutely evil, however they still have the slimest connection to God while they are alive, because they have consciousness.

Sever that connection through sin, which it is likely they have done, and they will basically enter non-existence upon death.  Those of us who honestly strive to avoid sin as best we can, will continue to exist after death, albiet in a form we have great difficulty undetstanding because in life we exist in a very limited set of dimensions 

Forget all the fire and brimstone versions of Hell, they are inaccurate.


----------



## Sorlock (Apr 6, 2020)

Heaven and Hell are states of mind, though I think there is also an afterlife with Heaven and Hell. I think Heaven and Hell begin on Earth. People who do really horrific things are probably also already suffering horribly on Earth or they wouldn't want to do horrific things. I think Heaven is much more interesting than Hell. Hell has to be boring in order to be pure torture, and Heaven has to be interesting in order to be absolute bliss.


----------



## NIGGER ASS PEE POOPY RAPE (Apr 6, 2020)

once you take the redpill and can see that all females are demons, you will realize that the rapists did nothing wrong and will go to heaven while all the demon-worshipping simps will go to hell. how can heaven and hell be real when morality is this subjective? "bad" people rarely believe they're doing anything wrong so how are people supposed to do the right thing if their moral compasses are broken?


----------



## Drifting Panzer (Apr 6, 2020)

There is no heaven or hell, some good people will suffer, some evil people will prosper and we all will die in the end. To top it off, it will all be pointless, not even a blip on the radar of an uncaring universe.

Also, I had forgotten about that story, thanks for reminding me. Guess I am drinking myself into a stupor tonight in hopes of forgetting this again.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Apr 6, 2020)

Maybe they are an invention, maybe not. It's impossible to prove or disprove either way.
Speaking from a social angle it makes sense as they give a the ultimate incentive not to be an ass towards others and follow communal laws. After all, what is an infinity of torment versus a temporary gain from lying/cheating/murdering? It also enforces the idea of universal morals, rather than the (depressingly pushed) modern idea of subjective morality.
Also I wouldn't really put those ideas as making people feel better since they are more stressful in the personal level than satisfying in the community level.


----------



## Zarael (Apr 6, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> That raises the question though, why are the modern views so different from what early Christianity taught?


It isn't. The vast majority of the Church Fathers were not universalists and it's debatable whether even those that do write some universalist things like Gregory of Nyssa were actually full fledged universalists. Which is frankly to be expected when Jesus says straight up that it would be better to cut your hand off than let it make you sin and send you to hell. I assume you got the Aion thing from David Bentley Hart since he's the biggest proponent of that, but there's an issue there when Jesus uses the same term to describe the life after ressurection. If hell is finite then so is heaven, unless you twist yourself into knots over trying to justify interpreting aionos one way for hell and another way for heaven.

Don't worry OP there is a hell and those individuals are most definitely going there.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 6, 2020)

Zarael said:


> I assume you got the Aion thing from David Bentley Hart since he's the biggest proponent of that, but there's an issue there when Jesus uses the same term to describe the life after ressurection. If hell is finite then so is heaven, unless you twist yourself into knots over trying to justify interpreting aionos one way for hell and another way for heaven.



If you want to go with that argument and say that an aion must be infinite then you also have to tie yourself in knots. Galatians 1:4 says that refers to an aion of wickedness. It would be very unfortunate if that were never ending. More relevantly, Jesus himself refers to the apocalypse as an aion in Matthew 13:39 and 13:40. The word is also used in in Ephesians 2:7 and Ephesians 3:9 to past and future aions which presumebly have ended or will end. Aions are therefore not necessarily infinite and can be temporary. If the Resurrection is the last stage in time then obviously it will never end as there is no new age to replace it. In that case I do admit that it could be used to refer to an eternal age in that context. That's why I complemented my argument with reference to the fact that the bible says all will be saved eventually.

I could debate you over what the church fathers. I don't especially think that it matters thought. I prefer to consider the teachings of the disciples and Paul as well as the teachings they endorsed considering they're in the better position to know what Christ actually taught. As such, I'll offer a list of verse that imply universal salvation from those sources. If you want anymore then feel free to ask.



Spoiler: Verses



1 John 4:14
1 Timothy 2:4
John 17:2 with consideration for John 3:35 and John 13:3
Romans 5:15-21
Romans 11:15 
Ephesians 1:10 
Philippians 2:9-11 
Hebrews 8:11-12
Revelation 5:13
Revelation 15:4





Zarael said:


> Don't worry OP there is a hell and those individuals are most definitely going there.



I don't dispute the existence of Hell. For the principle of ultimate justice to exist so must a place of penance and rehabilitation. However, the correlate of an all loving and all just God is an infinite capacity for forgiveness and redemption. Let me ask you, if a person in Hell truly repents his actions and beg for forgiveness, would it be just for God to torture him?


----------



## Orion Balls (Apr 6, 2020)

They way I figure, I only get one life, and the way I impact those around me decides what lives on after I'm dead and under a tree. I don't think I will go to Heaven or Hell, but what I do with my life can render others' lives harder or easier in the future.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Apr 6, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> It isn't until the latin translations of the Roman church which used the word aeternus that Hell began being preached as eternal damnation



The Eastern churches also believe in eternal damnation, and have been unambiguous about its eternality, even if some (i.e. a stark minority) of their venerated saints have been optimistic about who actually goes there.

Anyone who speaks exclusively about the RCC when discussing the history of doctrine (talking about things like the "influence of St. Augustine", who-- while recognized as a saint all the same-- hardly had any strong influence beyond the Roman church) invariably has no idea what they're talking about.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Apr 6, 2020)

DragoonSierra said:


> Duel 1
> 
> LET'S ROCK!


RJD has got ya covered.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 6, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> The Eastern churches also believe in eternal damnation, and have been unambiguous about its eternality, even if some (i.e. a stark minority) of their venerated saints have been optimistic about who actually goes there.
> 
> Anyone who speaks exclusively about the RCC when discussing the history of doctrine (talking about things like the "influence of St. Augustine", who-- while recognized as a saint all the same-- hardly had any strong influence beyond the Roman church) invariably has no idea what they're talking about.


 
If you'll note, I mentioned the influence of Augustine in addendum of the general power that the principle of eternal damnation gave the western church. I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts. I will admit bias against Augustine and took the unneeded opportunity to trash talk him a little. On the other hand, he does offer good evidence that universal salvation was either the majority view of the Western Church in his time or at the very least had a large presence. Indeed, he states so himself in his Enchiridion at 112; "immo quam plurimi". Given the extent of Augustine's influence and the subsequent reduction in universalists, I would say there is some relation between the two.If you believe another factor is of more importance then fair enough. The Eastern Church is as you rightly point out its own matter. Its actually far more clean cut there in my opinion. Universal salvation wasn't not initially declared heretical by the eastern church but the Emperor Justinian. The church itself wouldn't make such a pronouncement until the trial of Origen and Clement at or before the second council of Constantinople. In that case, belief in universal salvation was damned by association with their other heretical teachings of spiritual resurrection and Platonism.

With those additions for historical accuracy out the way, I still stand by the general point I was making. I should note that none of what I said is exclusive to the RCC (they just offer a good example in Charlemagne) or even Christianity in general. The same pattern can be seen across almost all religions. Religious authorities will always leverage the threat of divine punishment to coerce secular authority. 

I would however contend that you're simplifying the Orthodox Church's view of salvation. At the end of the day though, we could quibble over denominations until kingdom come. There's the old joke about two Northern Baptists on a bridge; every Church thinks it's right and all the others are heretics. As I said in my first post though, we know what the earliest Christian creed consisted of as preached by the disciples and then Paul after his conversion. What Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15 is what the first teachings of the church was based on:


1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive
1 Corinthians 15:28 - When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all​


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Apr 6, 2020)

I have no interest in addressing the religious posts; anything bar the Roman Catholic position has had little to no impact on the development on the modern perception of Hell in the dominant western cultural hegemony so there's no point talking about others in this venue likely populated by other Europeans, Americans (Both North and Southern continents) and Australia so I'll focus on Hell as a purely mythical concept. 

I find some truth in Voltaire's statement that "I might not be religious, but I expect my servants to be" (An idea he followed as far as actually funding the construction of a church on his own land). Religious people won't like this but there is a reason Atheism tends to correspond with a higher level of education; Atheists may not be innately smarter or have higher IQ's but they do tend to be more rational and that is a skill that can be learned by most, but not all people.

There are some people for whom the threat of a father in the sky wielding the same carrot and stick that their own parents used to guide them through life, being drip-fed a very basic and absolute moral code is the best way to corral them so they don't become too much of a threat to the stable functioning of a society. 

However, I would say that Hell is becoming obsolete, and to a lesser degree Heaven as well; with the level of CCTV and state surveillance now there is the very real potential for an all-seeing entity to see all you do and assign you immediate punishment. You don't need to wait for Satan to roast you, Tyrone will happily do it in a jail you will most certainly be going to as soon as someone watches the tape or reads the logs confirming you looked at something your government doesn't like. As bad as life may seem sometimes at the bottom of western societies, very few ever really experience the "Hell" that was life for a medieval peasant for whom the promise of an eternal life after a lifetime of unending toil and torment was their only hope. The welfare state where few starve and support is freely given to those who need has replaced the need to look to the next world; and that is something easily verified as it's the poorest nations that are the most religious. The lower the poverty, the lower the level of petty crime and religiosity. Both are ultimately escapes from reality or an attempt to rebel and improve ones lot in life illicitly.

There is no heaven, no kind smile on high neither nor malicious boogeyman down below. There is only one hell, and it's the one we live in now.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (Apr 6, 2020)

The Last Stand said:


> Atheist time.
> You rot in the ground.
> There.



Or if you have any class, you don't rot and instead just sit back at home inside a stylish, compact vase.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Apr 6, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts.



The East doesn't consider him the author of heretical texts, canonically.



Ars Goetia said:


> On the other hand, he does offer good evidence that universal salvation was either the majority view of the Western Church in his time or at the very least had a large presence.



That's an equivocation. Either it was the majority position or it wasn't, and even if it had a "large presence"-- whatever that means-- that doesn't vindicate the position within the confines of Christian doctrine as informed by Scripture and the historical tradition in which it was formed and inhabits. I'd be inclined to say that "large presence" means "warranted being addressed by a council", but councils back then were convened conservatively to dogmatize on *really* controversial issues (e.g. Arianism). If it took the Fifth Ecumenical Council for it to be addressed, as an item within a collection of beliefs (Origenism), which was addressed beside another particular belief (Nestorianism), _and you didn't see break aways after the dogmatizations _like you saw from particularly the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that all strongly implies the condemnation of universalism by council wasn't controversial, and thus wasn't an important doctrine.

But it _would_ be an important doctrine, because it describes a particular eschatology. _That,_ by itself, suggests that there was no strong contingent within the presbytery that taught universal salvation.



Ars Goetia said:


> Universal salvation wasn't not initially declared heretical by the eastern church but the Emperor Justinian.



You misunderstand the point of dogma if you're saying this. You likely mean to suggest that he strongarmed the Church into condemning the doctrine of universal salvation, except that you've repeatedly had clerics and the like go as far as resisting the empire (e.g. Athanasius, Maximus) for the sake of orthodox doctrine (or at least, what they consider such)-- if there was a strong contingent that believed in universal salvation, there would have been struggle about this specific matter.

Secondly, and most importantly, I reiterate what I said before: dogma, historically, and particularly in an *ecumenical* council, was only declared under what were recognized as extreme circumstances. The Trinity was declared dogma in the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, for example, because of the great disturbance that Arianism (and its lookalikes) had been causing within the Church (and as far as the emperor was concerned, the empire). If it wasn't a controversy that was seen as demanding a council (of any kind), they didn't convene a council.

*That doesn't mean that something wasn't doctrine before its dogmatization, or that it wasn't understood as orthodox doctrine. *Dogmatization is meant to enshrine orthodox doctrine when said doctrine is vigorously opposed, to the detriment to the unified pedagogical and liturgical capacities of the Church.  If universal salvation wasn't addressed until the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while that could mean that it was accepted before it wasn't (such is a rather cynical viewpoint), it more than likely means that _until then, _the Church ecumenical didn't see it as an impediment to its functions _because it wasn't actually popular enough to warrant more than stern warnings and excommunications._

If the doctrine of universal salvation was condemned as part of Origenism, that doesn't mean that it wasn't condemned particularly. They didn't say "we condemn Origenism", they said "we condemn such and such teachings of Origen". Origen _was_ a Christian (however "mad scientist" he was with his doctrines), and some of his teachings were referred to in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

...but we're talking about the _second _Origenist crisis.



Ars Goetia said:


> Religious authorities will always leverage the threat of divine punishment to coerce secular authority.



Weren't you suggesting that _Justinian_, somehow, declared the doctrines heretical?



Ars Goetia said:


> I would however contend that you're simplifying the Orthodox Church's view of salvation.



I mentioned "the Eastern Churches", which would include the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, the (Oriental) Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. *All of them believe in eternal damnation.* Stating this isn't an oversimplification of doctrine-- that's a statement about a segment of a particular doctrine they all have. I could mention that the Eastern Orthodox largely believe that "heaven" and "hell" are particular experiences of God's presence by the soul (as all souls return to God), and that the soul opposed to God "experiences hell", but outside of that, souls ultimately tended towards God experience different levels of Purgatory-*ish* purification as part of their continued theosis, including maybe none at all.

But that's not relevant to this discussion. "Denominations" aren't relevant, because we weren't speaking of denominations.



Fagatron said:


> Religious people won't like this but there is a reason Atheism tends to correspond with a higher level of education; Atheists may not be innately smarter or have higher IQ's but they do tend to be more rational and that is a skill that can be learned by most, but not all people.



You're asserting that higher levels of education is synonymous with greater rationality? Let's forget that institutions of learning were initially religious, and for the longest time, the only way you were going to be strongly literate (if at all) outside of being of higher class was to become a priest or monk-- _have you been to universities?_


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Apr 6, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> You're asserting that higher levels of education is synonymous with greater rationality? Let's forget that institutions of learning were initially religious, and for the longest time, the only way you were going to be strongly literate (if at all) outside of being of higher class was to become a priest or monk-- _have you been to universities?_



I'm not suggesting all higher education leads to rational thinking; we have gender studies after all. It can depend on what you study; but there is a good reason why Liberty Univerisity and the Pontifical College of Rome haven't turned out a great mind of anything bar Theology for the past three hundered years that they haven't gone on to later proclaim a heretic at some point in their lives (See Mendel and all his ilk, though they do like to recant their condemnation and rehabilitate their image if it suits). They're now even behind modern scholarship of their own texts.

You're also forgetting that what a university was back several hundred years ago is not what a university is today. The depth of study was actually lower in the medieval period, they covered a much more wide curriculum and studied it for far longer than modern graduates do today with their more specialized and focused knowledge.

I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills. This is not something taught to Theologians by and large let alone high school/home school grad religious individuals and why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.

They can come up with a splendid piece of historical parroting, but never really go beyond there and think much for themselves. It's not their fault, ecclesiastical endorsed theology departments (and not all are) today and for some time actively discourages openly doing it.






						Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent
					

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent   Satoshi Kanazawa London School of Economics and Political Science University College London Birkbeck College University of London   Where do individual values and preferences come from?  Why do people want what they want?  And why do different...




					www.asanet.org
				




Or a more condensed version









						Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study
					

Religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists, researchers claim.  With the number of people with a religious belief on the rise – it’s predicted that people with no faith will make up only 13 per cent of the global population by 2050 – numerous studies have explored the...




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Ilikeoreos (Apr 6, 2020)

Thanks OP.  That particular story you mentioned ranks very high on my list of "things I wish I never read about and don't like to be reminded of"

I REALLY REALLY wish someone would start some kind of movement demanding that the Tokyo police apologize to the entire world for not hanging those guys and pay that girls family.  This story is one of the few things that makes my shoulder devil legitimately want to react like a muslim who just saw a drawing of Mohammed


----------



## knobslobbin (Apr 6, 2020)

If there are infinite realities then some of them are sure to meet our definition of heaven or hell. But why restrict our speculation to two out of all of the possibilities? I'm more interested in what it's like where time is multi dimensional, like when spacetime flows down the throat of a blackhole, or realities where causality is completely different. Clearly you need more drugs in your life


----------



## Zarael (Apr 6, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> If you'll note, I mentioned the influence of Augustine in addendum of the general power that the principle of eternal damnation gave the western church. I am aware of the very strange position that Augustine has in the east as both being a Saint and author of multiple heretical texts. I will admit bias against Augustine and took the unneeded opportunity to trash talk him a little.


Are you a Dyerite? Augustine is not the author of "multiple heretical texts", no Church says that. A very few Orthodox polemicists have an axe to grind against Augustine and his theology but they're the Eastern Orthodox equivalent of the SSPX, hardly worth considering when we're discussing Orthodox theology. They are not representative of Orthodox views and their bias against Augustines theology stems from being anti-Catholic more than an adherence to genuine Orthodox theology.



> every Church thinks it's right and all the others are heretics.


Universalism isn't even within the ballpark of orthodox Christian theology though. It's not a view held by any Church until around the 1960s with Unitarian Universalism which can hardly be called "Christian" religion in any real sense, rather a hodge podge of new age ideas with Christian trappings. This isn't about denominations. This is about the fact that if you're a universalist then you might as well be a Mormon because they're both about as far from orthodox Christian teaching as each other.



Fagatron said:


> why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.


Atheist philosophers can rarely trade blows with William Lane Craig let alone someone like David Bentley Hart, Alvin Plantinga or John Milbank.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 7, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> On the Eastern Churches



My knowledge of the Eastern Churches is fairly limited and see now is in many ways it may be incorrect. This is one of the reasons I focused on the RCC and by extension St. Augustine. I appreciate you taking the time to correct me on thos points. I could be so kind, could you recommend some sources

That's an equivocation. Either it was the majority position or it wasn't
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the confusion, I should have made clear what I meant when I said that. "Immo quam plurimi" can be translated either to mean "a great many" or simply as "a majority." Rather than simply saying that it was a majority I wanted to acknowledge that it could be interpreted either way without additional supporting evidence to determine which is more accurate a translation.



Zero Day Defense said:


> Either it was the majority position or it wasn't, and even if it had a "large presence"-- whatever that means-- that doesn't vindicate the position within the confines of Christian doctrine as informed by Scripture and the historical tradition in which it was formed and inhabits. I'd be inclined to say that "large presence" means "warranted being addressed by a council", but councils back then were convened conservatively to dogmatize on *really* controversial issues (e.g. Arianism).



You contract this when you say:



Zero Day Defense said:


> the Church ecumenical didn't see it as an impediment to its functions _because it wasn't actually popular enough to warrant more than stern warnings and excommunications.
> 
> AND_
> 
> if there was a strong contingent that believed in universal salvation, there would have been struggle about this specific matter.



Your argument is that universalism wasn't important or popular enough to be addressed but, also, when it was addressed it was neither important nor popular. In fact, St. Augustine claims that it *was* popular.  In addition, he wrote many works which included arguments against both universaism and other alternative views of salvation. This further suggests that they were popular enough to be worth allocating a considerable amount of time to argue against. Why is that it was only two centuries later that universalism was worthy of a council when there is no evidence that it remained popular and some of its main proponents were tried posthumously?

Let put that aside though. Let us assume that universalism was an extreme minority view and did not have the presence that St. Augustine claimed it had. I'll argue that if it were heretical before the teachings of Augustine in the west or the in the east before the 5th Ecumenical Council that it would have required addressing far earlier.

Aside from how many preached it, *who *preached is an equally important question. I won't rhyme off a list of early Christians who were universalists but rather will focus on 2 powerful examples. Firstly, there is Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory was a staunch universalist. If universalism was unofficially considered heretical and was only tolerated since it was it was not popular or controversial enough to be decided at a council then why was he allowed such a prominent role in the second ecumenical council? Did the Churches simply allow a heretic to have authority over deciding the core teachings of Christianity only because his particular brand of heresy was just not popular enough to dispute? The likely response to this is to suggest that as with Origen that the Church still accepted many of his views just not those of universalism. However, at the 5th Ecumenical despite condemning Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and his preaching in general were praised. This is despite him still being known as a prominent universalist as shown by Barsanuphius of Palestine's writings.

Secondly, there is St. Paul. Throughout his epistles he preached universal salvation. I have quoted 1 Corinthians 15 elsewhere in the thread and many Pauline verse are among those quoted under a spoiler in another post on this thread. The question is then, was St. Paul departing from what other early Christians believed? However, Paul relates that Peter, John, and James affirmed his preaching in Galatians 2:6. He goes even further to say that the others pillars preached the exact same message in 1 Corinthians 15. If you believe that John the evangelist was the one who wrote the Gospel of John and/or revelations then that would be a strong indication for early universalism as those works too appear to strongly support it. Paul thus relates that Peter, James and John also taught universalism.

What if Paul is lying though and they didn't approve his teachings? Well, we know that both James and Peter addressed early heresies yet they did not appear to have sanctioned. Neither did any other prominent Christian who we know despite many being acquainted with Paul. Despite the amount of writing we have from this period, no Christian writer attempts to challenge Paul on his belief that all will be saved.

We also know from the Muratorian Fragment that Paul's Epistles were considered New Testament canon by the mid 2nd century. This implies that Paul's teachings were accepted widely in the early church. Why then were Paul's heretical teachings not seen as an obstacle for his inclusion into the Bible itself? These 2 examples indicate that not only did early Christianity accept universalism but from the beginning that the pillars of the church taught it.




Fagatron said:


> I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills. This is not something taught to Theologians by and large let alone high school/home school grad religious individuals and why even upper-tier Theologians tend to really fall flat on their faces when confronted by modern focused philosophers; they've rarely got the thinking tools developed to trade blows with these people.
> 
> They can come up with a splendid piece of historical parroting, but never really go beyond there and think much for themselves. It's not their fault, ecclesiastical endorsed theology departments (and not all are) today and for some time actively discourages openly doing it.
> 
> ...



The empirical evidence offered in your first source and the source cited in your second article are both taken from American samples. A multi country meta analysis of studies on the relationship between religion and intelligence (http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18228/jdm18228.html) demonstrate that that is a significant problem. This meta analysis found that the lower a countries average religious belief, the higher that religion actually corresponded with greater analytical skill. The most striking is the UK.

The analysis demonstrates that it seems more logical to conclude that people with low analytical skills will cohere to the majority view of their culture without considering it critically. Therefore, it isn't that people are religious or are atheists because they are more or less intelligent. Rather, many people are atheists or theists (depending on their culture) because they are already less intelligent.



Zarael said:


> Augustine is not the author of "multiple heretical texts", no Church says that



Sorry, that's me being dumb. I misremembered the Orthodox view on his teachings of Filioque. Thank you for correcting me. I think I need to do more reading on the Eastern churches in general.



Zarael said:


> Universalism isn't even within the ballpark of orthodox Christian theology though



I strongly disagree. 1 Corinthians 15 is derived from the earliest Christian preaching and thus universalism is the *most* orthodox view of Christianity.  Paul makes clear that all are to be saved: 1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. A common response to this is to translate this as those "who belong to Christ" and imply that that does not include every one. I would then cite 1 Corinthians 15:28 which says regardless that all indeed do belong to Christ.

You are right to say that universalism backed by new age beliefs are really stupid. I don't base my view on any such new age view. I ground that belief in the scriptures.


----------



## FunPosting101 (Apr 7, 2020)

Heaven and Hell are most likely fictional places made up by human beings a long-ass time ago. So yeah, they kinda are mental constructs of a sort.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Apr 7, 2020)

I believe in an afterlife as an "externalized inner reality" (as David Staume put it). So, heaven/hell "reflect" one's state of mind, and the afterlife is "based on mind" -- and feels "more real" than physical reality. Also I hope hell is not permanent.

To put it another way, the afterlife may be like the "Nexus" in Star Trek. I think Swedenborg (1688-1772) was more or less right.

God in this belief is the very essence of Love and Truth.


----------



## comrade666 (Apr 7, 2020)

Heaven and Hell as concepts described by man are entirely fictitious. I wouldn't put any stock into texts written at most a few thousand years ago by those seeking power through control. More optimistically, you're looking at texts written by the mentally ill who sincerely believed they had been visited by a deity. If you base your moral code and life path on those texts, then best of luck.


----------



## SregginKcuf (Apr 7, 2020)

Hell is on earth, thanks to the COVID 19 crap which was predicted by two George's - Orwell and Carlin


----------



## Biden's Chosen (Apr 7, 2020)

Hell wants you to think that Heaven is boring, Heaven wants you to think Hell is Hell. I think the latter underestimated people's self-destructiveness.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 7, 2020)

Fagatron said:


> I'm saying that someone who has studied a STEM subject, the traditional humanities etc is more likely to have developed critical thinking skills.


Can you explain what you consider to be the difference between critical thinking skills and thinking skills?

Why do you say that atheists don't have higher IQ, but do have more rationality and then cite two articles that say they're smarter? Wouldn't it be irrational to both trust a source and then take a different conclusion?


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 8, 2020)

@comrade666 , I though I would respond to some of your points since they're fairly common objections to Christianity. I'll also give you a few points you might find useful if you want to make similar arguments in the future.

I'm going to spoiler my responses as they are not necessarily related to Heaven and Hell themselves but the source of their teachings. Also, I don't want to shit up the thread anymore than I have already. Corona has given me far too much free time to kill and I'll understand if you don't read everything. всего хорошего Comrade.



comrade666 said:


> I wouldn't put any stock into texts written at most a few thousand years ago by those seeking power through control.





Spoiler: Response 1



It's important to remember the historic context of when Jesus lived and later when the Gospels where written. If you're goal is power and control then Christianity is a really bad religion to make up. The Jewish idea of the Messiah was a great warrior that would conquer the Roman Empire. They also had a very different concept of God and the afterlife compared to Jesus' teaching of the trinity of ressurection. Similarly, the Romans and Greeks mainly believed in a spiritual afterlife. In fact, most pagan beliefs at the time actively detested the idea of a physical Resurrection as they hoped for escape from the weakness of flesh. In both cases the first witnesses mentioned for the central revelation of Christianity were women who testimony neither society considered as worth anything. In fact, it was almost worthless in court. This was actually a point the early critics of Christianity, particularly Celsus, hammered them for.

There are other things if you were making up a religion that you wouldn't include. There's the fact that the Christians chose a Messiah who was an impoverished Rabbi that was crushed like a cockroach by his opponents. He wasn't exactly Zeus, let's put it that way. Aside from that, the Bible claims that James the first bishop of the Church during Jesus' life though that he was a madman, an embarrassment, and even mocked him to his face. His favored disciple? He denied him 3 times and ran away. Paul, the most influential preacher? He was a murderous persecutor and who participated in the execution of the first Christian martyr. If you want to make your religious leaders seem credible then you probably wouldn't mention those things.         

There's also the issue of Paul who already had power and control. He was a Roman citizen whose writings indicate that he was well educated. He held a position of authority as a high ranking Pharisee. He was also given the task of rooting out the most extensive heresy in Jewish history something that would have stood him in good stead for future advances. Despite that, he chose to become a travelling peasant who received beatings, was stoned, put on trial, imprisoned for long periods of time, and eventually executed. If Paul preached Christianity for power through control then he was the biggest idiot in the world. As were the disciples. We have a 1st century source for the martyrdom of most of the disciples and a 2nd century source for John's death. They only thing they gained for themselves in their lifetime was ridicule and pain.

It was later that the Church became a tool of power and authority. If you want to see the point where that becomes undeniable then I would suggest researching the persecution of the Donatists or later on the Albigensian Crusade. If you want to make the argument that the later church was or is trying to achieve "power through control" then by all means make that argument. I certainly do.





comrade666 said:


> More optimistically, you're looking at texts written by the mentally ill who sincerely believed they had been visited by a deity.





Spoiler: Response 2



Before getting on to my argument I would first recommend "The New Testament : A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart Ehrman is a good introduction for anyone wanting to look at the Bible as a historical document and especially if you are interested in the skeptical viewpoint. I say that so that you have a basis with which to check the truth of my next sentence. The historical facts I am going to state and any references to the Bible are ones that the vast majority of skeptical Historians agree are reliable. In accordance, the agreed upon list of supposed witnesses to the Resurrection is found in 1 Corinthians 15. This is generally accepted as, aside from Paul's name, the list can be traced back to shortly after these It includes 3 individual appearances to Peter, Paul and, James.  This is in addition to appearance(s) to 3 groups: all of the 12 disciples, to all the apostles, and to a group of 500 at once.   

I would caution against using the mental illness argument, skeptic historians used to favor the hallucination theory for a reason. You need to posit some sort of mental illness which inflicted several hundred people, which resulted in almost identical experience, and for some of them involved only a single mental episode in their entire life such as Paul and James. Furthermore, outside of a specific period of Paul's conversion, the appearances all occurred over a limited period of time. We know that the disciples taught in different areas from each other yet there is no indication that any of them received any further "revelations" as the result of a mental illness. There were certainly minor regional differences in teaching in regards to principles such as Jewish law and Christian liberty but no one claims to have received new teachings from Jesus. Paul claims that he was the last one to see him and historians agree that Paul was converted 2 years after the cross. Any posited illness therefore must last at maximum 2 years but also end after only one incident as well as appearing to have never been recorded again in history.

In addition, there is no disease which explains the symptoms which would be associated with the experience especially without modern medicine. Diseases such as schizophrenia result in extremely disordered thoughts which greatly worsen over time without treatment. Nonetheless, Paul was able to write coherent arguments and used complex rhetorical devices in the original Greek writings. There have been arguments made for conversion disorder to explain the physical effects of Paul's experience but that doesn't produce hallucinations. Some of the disciples also preached for decades yet seemingly did not apparently degenerate into raving lunatics. Peter for instance continued preaching for nearly 40 years based on our sources for his martyrdom. In all, you need to argue for some sort of mental illness that lasts for a short but varying time, was suffered from by hundreds of people in one small area of Judea, that has never occurred again and is currently unknown to modern psychiatry. These are a few reasons why 100 hundred years ago when the hallucination theory was still used extensively that it was favored; you need to prove far less in order to make the same point. 

Concerning the hallucination theory, while its stronger than the mental illness argument there are also reasons why it has declined in use. I'll give you a few quick refutations for this theory as well. These also apply for the most part to the mental illness theory.

1. Modern research in psychiatric science has found that hallucinations are subjective personal experience. There is not a single confirmed case in any medical literature of a unified group hallucination. Anecdotally you can check this yourself, you can say to someone that you're seeing a vision of something and describe it as vividly as you want. That person won't suddenly see what you're supposedly seeing, hallucinations are not infectious. Even where everyone in a group are all in a mental state to hallucinate (say through drugs) their experience is still individual and varying. There is one prominent case that was investigated as a group hallucination. That was the supposed miracle of the sun at Fátima. However, the witness testimony all varied greatly on what they had actually seen. More importantly, all their visions could be explained as caused by staring directly at the sun which they were all doing at the time. Therefore, you need to show firstly that group hallucinations are even possible and then that they cohere sufficiently for an agreement on what was seen. Essentially, you must show that a psychiatric phenomena which has never before been recorded yet happened multiple times to a small set of people in specific region and only in relation to one specific subject matter.

2. The causes of hallucinations affect various demographics at different rates and require certain mindsets. Biologically, Peter was very different from Mary Magdalene. In mindset the disciples were very different from the unbelievers of Paul and James. You would need to indicates some form of hallucination which can occur across these demographics with a reliable enough rate to affect all of these people. Their hallucinations must have various different causes but the same effect.

3. Hallucinations don't empty tombs, you need to come up for another reason why the tomb was empty. Despite the earliest christian preaching being in and around Jerusalem (according to both the Bible and the Roman historian Tacitus) where Jesus' tomb supposedly was nobody appears to have been able to just go and fetch the body. 

How do we know he even had a tomb? Two separate tombs have been found which contain crucifixion victims. Also, the 1st Century Jewish historian, Josephus, recorded that despite the Romans crucifying so many Jews after the Jewish war that they literally ran out of wood that families were still allowed to collect the bodies for burial.

How do we know it was empty? Every critical early Jewish source which mentions the burial of Jesus claims that the disciples stole the body. This essentially admits an empty tomb. While the Roman critics also took this line, archaeologists have also discovered that the Romans passed a law specifically applying to Israel, the Nazareth decree, at around 40 AD. The law indicates that the rolling of stones from tombs and the stealing of bodies will thereafter incur the death penalty. Nowhere else in the Roman Empire was so severe a punishment made for these actions. In fact, they were considered minor crimes. Circumstantial I know but in light of the cross cultural enemy attestation it is difficult to refute a connection.

Of course you could say the disciples did steel the body. In which case they wouldn't believe their hallucinations while Christ's body is sitting on their sofa. If they were making up an empty tomb they also wouldn't have the main witnesses in their story be women whose testimony was worthless in that era. Nor would they thereafter live a life of hardship and poverty not willingly preach despite the threat of execution for beliefs that they absolutely knew to be false.





comrade666 said:


> If you base your moral code and life path on those texts, then best of luck.





Spoiler: Response 3 (This one's short, I promise) 



The central Christian moral teaching is to love thy neighbor as they self. In the study of ethics this is known as the golden rule and is found in virtually every ethical system both religious and secular. The chances are that you follow the same moral code.

As for them being thousands of years old, I'm aware of many people who still follow the philosophy of Aristotle or Plato despite their age. Furthermore, even if you think Jesus was nothing more than a normal Jewish Rabbi then I still would argue that his ethical teachings hold up.


----------



## comrade666 (Apr 8, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> @comrade666 , I though I would respond to some of your points since they're fairly common objections to Christianity. I'll also give you a few points you might find useful if you want to make similar arguments in the future.
> 
> I'm going to spoiler my responses as they are not necessarily related to Heaven and Hell themselves but the source of their teachings. Also, I don't want to shit up the thread anymore than I have already. Corona has given me far too much free time to kill and I'll understand if you don't read everything. всего хорошего Comrade.
> 
> ...



No, I'm interested to read what you have to say.  I've got a little more free time than usual myself. You've made some interesting points and on the whole I think we may actually agree.

1. When referring to power and control, I should be more specific. I wouldn't suggest that the *original *text was a grab for power and control. Revisions made to the original text through translation over the years has warped the initial meaning. Now, when I speak of power and control, I am specifically referring to the revisions made in, for example, the KJV. More specifically, the confused translation of 'Hades' and 'Sheol' so as to describe a place of torment. As I'm sure you know, a more accurate translation may have been the afterlife, or similar.
And, of course, there was Gehenna. Literally, a real valley in which ritualistic fire sacrifice took place. Carelessly translated, or a calculated decision?

In my opinion, the modern concept of hell was developed as a means of control through fear. At the time of translation, only those in power had the privilege of literacy. The average man had no choice but to trust the translations as read aloud to them in church. The ruling class have simply *never* had the best interests of the people at heart. These translations were read aloud and they inspired fear. Should you not comply, should you not follow these commands, you *will *burn for eternity - that was the message. Critical analysis was not a priority and fear ruled, as it always will, when power is in play.

This continues, to some extent, to this day, and so we may agree on that point give or take a few centuries. Many fear an eternity of suffering and comply for no better reason. I wouldn't shame anyone for finding comfort in religion but I find the extremists who follow the text to the letter and waste an opportunity to live to be a little pitiful. If they find happiness in that then I truly do wish them well, but I see religion, and the contemporary concept of hell by extension, as nothing more than shameless fear mongering.

2. As for the mental illness meets hallucination theory, it was something myself and others raised in the church had discussed casually. I had never considered the theory in any great depths, and I'll consider the information you've given. Until then, I couldn't make any further comment as I simply don't have the knowledge to expand on that.

3. I have no qualms with those who follow an ethical code and I don't disagree that the concept of love thy neighbour is a positive one. I personally prefer to adhere to my own moral code and frankly no human thought is unique. We all cherry pick from various philosophies consciously or otherwise. My problem comes when someone allows ancient text to dictate their every move, though of course, they are welcome to spend their time on this earth as they choose.

You've given me something to think about so I appreciate the information. Мир вам.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 8, 2020)

comrade666 said:


> In my opinion, the modern concept of hell was developed as a means of control through fear. At the time of translation, only those in power had the privilege of literacy. The average man had no choice but to trust the translations as read aloud to them in church. The ruling class have simply *never* had the best interests of the people at heart. These translations were read aloud and they inspired fear. Should you not comply, should you not follow these commands, you *will *burn for eternity - that was the message. Critical analysis was not a priority and fear ruled, as it always will, when power is in play.



I definitely agree there. Most Christians don't realize how lucky they are. There are thousands of preserved copies of the New Testament and enough recorded quotations of scripture in early Church writings that we could still have the New testament without a single manuscript. Moreover, it was originally in the most widely used written and studied language of the ancient Mediterranean. More than any other religion, we have the means to critically examine our original teachings. I feel sorry for Buddhists who need to rely on texts written hundreds of years after the death of their founder. Christianity doesn't have that problem but in many ways it may as well. Current majority views on Hell and sin have been actively distorted and taught devoid of their original historical and linguistic background. As a result you end up with doctrines which contradict the texts they're based on and are mainly crafted to maximize power.    



comrade666 said:


> We all cherry pick from various philosophies consciously or otherwise. My problem comes when someone allows ancient text to dictate their every move, though of course, they are welcome to spend their time on this earth as they choose.



We agree there as well. I think the Bible has many great moral lessons, more than any other book in my opinion. At the end of the day though, the New Testament was based on only 3 years of Jesus' teaching as well as limited by the price and length of a papyrus parchment. Anyone who sees it as a be all and end all to ethics is limiting themselves. Even before considering other texts, how many millions of pages have been written by priests and scholars debating the nature of the Bible's lessons?    

In any case, I do believe that there is some objective morality but I doubt that humans will ever discover it. At least not in this lifetime. I find it more fulfilling to see it something to strive towards together. Having it served up on a silver platter in a single unimpeachable text doesn't seems very satisfying.  



comrade666 said:


> You've given me something to think about so I appreciate the information. Мир вам.



That's all I was really hoping to do. If there's something you want to follow up on then feel free to ask and I'll try to answer. Stay safe and take care, we're living through a strange time.


----------



## Fistbeard_McThunderaxe (Apr 8, 2020)

One day some guys ate funny mushrooms and fell down a rabbit hole into the enffable nature of conciousness and reality. Afterwords they assigned objective truths to their subjective experiences in order to convince others what they saw had bearing on the material world. Eventually organized religion evolved to a profit off of the original claims that got retconned over the years.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 8, 2020)

The Christian idea of unchanging cosmic justice is interesting. Most western Christians follow modern secular values but still believe in heaven and hell. 

Christians recently freaked about a pastor condemning a gay suicide victim at his own funeral. The pastor warned them not follow the young man to hell. However, despite both suicide and gayness being clearly defined as sinful, most people condemned him. 

On the other hand, if a person followed the Bible and stoned a gay person to death most people would probably declare that the guy throwing the stones would be sent to hell. 

It's so selective that I can't understand it. You kept the idea of unchanging cosmic justice but apply subjective morality.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 9, 2020)

Slap47 said:


> It's so selective that I can't understand it.



I'll try and offer an explanation. You're other point provides a great starting point for that.



Slap47 said:


> On the other hand, if a person followed the Bible and stoned a gay person to death



They wouldn't be following the Bible if they did do that. There's a common misconception that Christians are bound by the laws in the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. They aren't though. In Matthew 5:17-18  Jesus reassured his Jewish audience that he was not going to simply destroy the law but fulfill its purpose through completing his aim. Essentially, following the Resurrection there was no reason to continue following the Jewish laws as it no longer had a purpose. As for the purpose, the laws were gradually implemented throughout the Torah as way to make people comply with the commandments. The laws failed as noted in Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel as well as being something that can be seen throughout the events of the Old Testament in general. This is explored more fully in the Epistles with Paul in Romans 13:8-10 saying that love alone fulfills the commandments and not the laws. There's a lot more to the theology behind this but that's the basic Christian belief. 

Whether Leviticus 20:13 actually concerns homosexuality is a bit murky especially in light of the LXX but looking at how Jesus interacted with the laws illustrates a more general point. Jesus prevented the execution of an adulterer in John 8 whose death was required under the laws in Leviticus 20. Instead of letting her be stoned he said that only those without sin could fulfill the punishment. This effectively saved her life. More interestingly though, Jesus is taught to be both God and the only human (unless you're Catholic) without sin. Therefore he was the only being who could carry out the execution required of the law. However, he didn't turn around and stone her himself. Instead he refused to condemn her and sent her on her way. You can see in this story how the condemnation of sin but forgiveness for sinners replaced the earlier punishments from Jewish Law.


----------



## Get_your_kicks_with_30-06 (Apr 9, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus reassured his Trump's Chosen audience





Ars Goetia said:


> following the Resurrection there was no reason to continue following the Trump's Chosen laws as it no longer had a purpose.





Ars Goetia said:


> You can see in this story how the condemnation of sin but forgiveness for sinners replaced the earlier punishments from Trump's Chosen Law.



The fucking word filter lmao. This is amazing.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Apr 9, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> I appreciate you taking the time to correct me on thos points. I could be so kind, could you recommend some sources



That's going to be difficult-- my knowledge of the Eastern churches comes from a variety of academic and anecdotal sources and is a compilation of knowledge over a few years. Despite-- to my understanding-- being an Evangelical, I found Dr. Ryan Reeves helpful in discussing what occurred in at least the Western and Eastern Roman Empire.



Ars Goetia said:


> Your argument is that universalism wasn't important or popular enough to be addressed but, also, when it was addressed it was neither important nor popular



No, I argue that given the nature of calling councils, it's far more likely that _until about the time it was addressed, _it wasn't important or popular enough to be addressed. See here:



Zero Day Defense said:


> If universal salvation wasn't addressed until the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while that could mean that it was accepted before it wasn't (such is a rather cynical viewpoint), it more than likely means that _until then, _the Church ecumenical didn't see it as an impediment to its functions _because it wasn't actually popular enough to warrant more than stern warnings and excommunications._



I even stress the precondition when I say it the first time.



Ars Goetia said:


> In fact, St. Augustine claims that it *was* popular.



And St. Augustine could be wrong, could be speaking particularly from his own senses, or could have been deliberately hyperbolic. At the end of the day, we're still talking about *one man.*



Ars Goetia said:


> In addition, he wrote many works which included arguments against both universaism and other alternative views of salvation.



That doesn't mean enough-- St. Augustine was an extremely prolific writer, and any of those writings are way more than a single letter. "Many works included arguments against alternative views of salvation" is vague as heck, and doesn't take into account what he was talking about that necessitated an affirmation of orthodox eschatology as a building block to another argument that may have not been innately eschatological.



Ars Goetia said:


> I'll argue that if it were heretical before the teachings of Augustine in the west



A heresy is only recognized as heresy in the face of dogma-- the term denotes teaching that is not only not orthodox, but promotes factions (hence the etymology of the term). Teaching can be wrong and harmful and recognized as such without it being heresy because nobody needs to convene a council to formally condemn the teaching under the weight of dogma.



Ars Goetia said:


> Aside from how many preached it, *who *preached is an equally important question.



Categorically false. Individual Church Fathers regarded as teachers of the faith are capable of being wrong or otherwise misguided, and it's particularly in the liturgy that teaching is vindicated. While St. Augustine is very much a venerable saint in the Eastern churches, it's also a common refrain from the Eastern churches that Augustine-- while not necessarily wrong in his approaches-- promoted what coalesced into an excessively legalistic approach to sin and salvation.

You absolutely cannot point to individual venerated saints and not recognize the teaching of the _Church _they were a part of. To the point, you cannot speak of St. Gregory of Nyssa speaking positively of universalism and not consider that he was consistently venerated during and after his death by the same Church that contradicted him, and you especially cannot point to St. Gregory of Nyssa and ignore just about every other contemporary venerated saint on the same matter.



Ars Goetia said:


> If universalism was unofficially considered heretical and was only tolerated since it was it was not popular or controversial enough to be decided at a council



The argument isn't that it was _tolerated_-- it's that action needed not extend beyond a reprimand, correction, or excommunication.



Ars Goetia said:


> then why was he allowed such a prominent role in the second ecumenical council? Did the Churches simply allow a heretic to have authority over deciding the core teachings of Christianity only because his particular brand of heresy was just not popular enough to dispute?



1. Not only does heresy have to be dogmatically declared such, a heretic has to actively be confronted about teaching heresy and refuse to relent.

2. You're presumably referring to St. Gregory of *Nazianzus, *who was one of the presidents of the Second Ecumenical Council. In fact, I can't find anything to suggest St. Gregory of Nyssa was a part of the Second Ecumenical Council.

3. This isn't my argument.



Ars Goetia said:


> Secondly, there is St. Paul. Throughout his epistles he preached universal salvation.



Why didn't you start with talking about Paul? 

Secondly, I'm not too interested in splitting hairs and word meanings about a language I largely haven't studied-- all the same, neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox, nor any of their direct or indirect schismatic cells, have ever affirmed what you assert regarding St. Paul, and a "plain" (recognizing that anyone brings in biases when reading anything, and the question is not about being biased, but about having the *right *biases) reading of St. Paul's epistles don't exclude the idea of eternal damnation and appear to naturally imply it.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 10, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> You're presumably referring to St. Gregory of *Nazianzus, *who was one of the presidents of the Second Ecumenical Council. In fact, I can't find anything to suggest St. Gregory of Nyssa was a part of the Second Ecumenical Council.



My understanding was that both attended. I have double checked and found a few sources to affirm that. I'll spoiler them below since I don't think it would be productive to continue to continue an argument based on Gregory of Nyssa. As you point out, Paul is more pertinent.  



Spoiler: Sources









						The Second Ecumenical Council - Content - Ecumenical Patriarchate: Holy and Great Council
					

The Second Ecumenical Council    Held in Constantinople in 381. Under Emperor Theodosius the Great. 150 Bishops were present.         The Macedonian Controversy    Macedonius, somewhat like...




					www.orthodoxcouncil.org
				











						Saint Gregory of Nyssa | Byzantine philosopher and theologian
					

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, ; feast day March 9), philosophical theologian and mystic, leader of the orthodox party in the 4th-century Christian controversies over the doctrine of the Trinity. Primarily a scholar, he wrote many theological, mystical, and monastic works in which he balanced Platonic and



					www.britannica.com
				





			https://www.st-philip.net/files/Fitzgerald%20Patristic%20series/Gregory-Nyssa_soul_and_resurrection.pdf
		



			Internet History Sourcebooks Project
		









						Gregory of Nyssa - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
					






					www.goarch.org
				









Zero Day Defense said:


> neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox, nor any of their direct or indirect schismatic cells, have ever affirmed what you assert regarding St. Paul



I disagree on how much that matters. You need to look at the basis of a belief not who holds it. The arrest and prosecution of Jesus by the Sanhedrin is probably the most dramatic example of a religion badly misinterpreting its Holy Texts. I care more about what the writers of the New Testament actually believed rather than what any church teaches they did. You would need to be willfully ignorant to believe that any religion throughout history doesn't interpret scripture in some way to suit itself.



Zero Day Defense said:


> a "plain" ... reading of St. Paul's epistles don't exclude the idea of eternal damnation and appear to naturally imply it.



We'll have to respectfully disagree on that then I suppose. Still, I don't understand how verses like 1 Corinthians 15:22 or Romans 5: 15-21 can be read any other way than to say that all will be saved. I can't compute why anyone can read all will live in Christ and say that implies or allows for eternal damnation. There are plenty more verses from both Paul and the pseudepigraphic epistles but if you have time then I would suggest re-reading Romans 11 concerning the reconciliation of Israel. 

As you say though, splitting hairs won't get us anywhere. I just want to leave you with some of the implications of eternal damnation. God desires to save all (Ezekiel 18:23, Matthew 23:37, 2 Peter 3:9), God has the power to save all (Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Matthew 19:26) and Jesus was sent to save all and reconcile all of creation to God (John 4:42, Luke 15:3–10, Romans 11:15). If even a handful are damned then God's will is unfulfilled and Jesus failed. Also, all that Jesus said about saving sinners, acting as doctor to the sick, and as a Good Shepherd? That all gets disregarded as soon as you die. At the end of time, the Good Shepard won't save his lost sheep but instead torture them endlessly. Also, we're not even just talking about a handful. If salvation occurs through faith alone and that faith must be in this life then the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived and currently live will be eternally damned. Why should anyone then worship Christ the cruel and marginally successful Messiah? 

There are so many bizarre implications that flow from eternal damnation. God wishes to save all but instead chooses to eternally torment those who he didn't save rather than give a second chance. Despite wanting to save all yet only doing so through faith, God does not show himself to all people so all would be saved. God forgives all who are truly penitent yet only before they die, after that he's content to torment them endlessly. More than that, if God wants to save all and the current situation means that that won't happen then why has he not done something more since the crucifixion? I don't think any of this will convince you but at least think about how you reconcile these issues. 



Zero Day Defense said:


> I found Dr. Ryan Reeves helpful in discussing what occurred in at least the Western and Eastern Roman Empire.



Thank you very much for the recommendation.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Apr 10, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> I disagree on how much that matters.



I think it matters a whole lot. The Bible, all the way down to what even constitutes it, isn't just a collection of books that gives rise to an belief system-- in fact, it isn't even particularly that. It's a book of a community, *for *that community, and principally needs to be understood in context of said community. It's said community that determined that A) these documents were representative of their belief, and B) these documents were given to them by the messengers of their faith. You can't unmoor said collection from a community and then talk about what it means; for example, the OT is rife with euphemisms-- the way that the Hebrew would describe circumcision could not, without the context of the community, be specifically understood as excising the foreskin; by itself, the description is vague enough that you could, if you wanted, interpret it as cutting skin off the nose instead. Paul in particular isn't just writing instruction manuals (the epistles we have are clearly non-exhaustive regarding the faith and don't instruct much on routine)-- he's writing principally to people that _knew_ him, and _knew _what he meant.

Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, it wouldn't be worthwhile to discuss which community has the correct context to accurately understand Paul's letters, as well as the NT and OT overall. On the other hand, that wouldn't be necessary because there just isn't any Christian community that teaches or taught universal salvation until who knows how recently.



Ars Goetia said:


> You would need to be willfully ignorant to believe that any religion throughout history doesn't interpret scripture in some way to suit itself.



This statement doesn't make any sense.

A religion isn't a person-- it's comprised of people that make up a community of adherents of that religion.

Secondly, assuming that you mean to speak of the presbytery and related parties, you're making a character assumption you can't wield, let alone prove. That's to say,

Thirdly, the exact same can be said of you, and there'd be more ground to it; that multiple communities, many of which disagree with each other, still agree on this matter doesn't just suggest that multiple communities agree on the matter, but it also alludes to there having been thousands of eyes on the verses you claim are demonstrations of Paul's belief in universal salvation for hundreds of years-- many who knew the language in which Paul wrote as their own, some even contemporaries of contemporaries of Paul (as opposed to hundreds of years away).

But they still come to the same conclusion-- that eternal damnation has always been a part of orthodox eschatology, and was taught by the apostles.

Meanwhile, you betray much that would suggest that you take this position to "suit [yourself]"-- as increasingly meaningless as it may be in protracted discussions to throw scriptural citation after scriptural citation, you yourself don't bother to start with what's actually said, but rather citations of God's character and stated intentions according to the scriptures, and then you reason from there that "if God _wants _all to be saved, then _all indeed will be saved"..._

...to the exclusion of various rejoinders Jesus gives in his parables about the unworthy being cast into the darkness where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30; Luke 13:2, Jesus' warning that the unrighteous-- even some who call him "Lord"-- will be renounced in the Final Judgment (Matthew 7:21-23), Paul's enumerations about who will *not* inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and even Paul's fears about himself failing to do what he seeks to lead others to accomplish (1 Corinthians 9:27). Why would he worry about this nearly as much as he does if everybody has no choice _but _to be saved?

Others read these repeated warnings (and more) and come to the conclusion that eternal damnation for the unrighteous is warned, and yet they're just interpreting their scriptures to "suit themselves" (even though they'd be better suited, naturally, to *not* have to worry about the risk of eternal damnation or scare people away with the rejoinders for active piety). But you read other verses (seemingly without reading the ones I've just mentioned) and come to the conclusion of something ultimately easier to not only swallow, but practice, and you're the one that's not operating in the way you accuse others of doing?



Ars Goetia said:


> We'll have to respectfully disagree on that then I suppose. Still, I don't understand how verses like 1 Corinthians 15:22 or Romans 5: 15-21 can be read any other way than to say that all will be saved.



I didn't know that the entirety of the Pauline corpus consisted of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:15-21 and that there was no surrounding context to these verses. I also wasn't aware that these verses were specially conceived in and continue to exist in a timeless void, devoid of any surrounding context, without hundreds-- if not thousands-- of consonant discussions of said verses to refer to.

I'll also ignore Romans 5:18 where it interchanges "many" and "all" for paralleling purposes, and that hyperbole isn't a foreign concept to Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3).



Ars Goetia said:


> As you say though, splitting hairs won't get us anywhere. I just want to leave you with some of the implications of eternal damnation. God desires to save all (Ezekiel 18:23, Matthew 23:37, 2 Peter 3:9), God has the power to save all (Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Matthew 19:26) and Jesus was sent to save all and reconcile all of creation to God (John 4:42, Luke 15:3–10, Romans 11:15). If even a handful are damned then God's will is unfulfilled and Jesus failed.



I reject your conclusion.

Throughout the scriptures, it's constantly demonstrated that God allows man to choose. God allowed Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, after they were warned by Him that they would die if they did. He allowed Cain to murder Abel. He allowed the evil of man to mount enough to warrant Him cleansing the earth. And he allowed Israel to repeatedly turn away from Him to other gods, to their detriment, even after He warned them of the consequences.

He _wanted_ Adam and Eve to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He _didn't want _Cain to murder Abel. He _didn't want_ that man pile up their sins so greatly that He "had to decide" to wipe nearly all of them out. And He _didn't_ _want _Israel to repeatedly turn away from Him to other gods. We know this because His desires would be demonstrated in the commandments He gave.

Ultimately, He gives man freedom of choice. In the OT, the covenant that God made with Israel _was_ their salvation, however incomplete it was, and they repeatedly spurned it. With your first and second premises, will you then say that God failed because many Israelites perished when they perished _of their own volition?_ Fundamentally, has He failed mankind by allowing Adam and Eve to bring suffering and death upon creation?

*No.* Because inherent to any of His desires for mankind are that *they* want what _He_ wants, and if they _don't_, then that's to _their _detriment. God _chose _to provide salvation for mankind in this way-- how does He fail if not everyone is saved? Did He ever indicate any expectation that all would have faith in Him that was defied?

Also baked into your stance is a necessary belief that "Heaven" and "Hell" are only "the Good Place" and "the Bad Place", respectively, rather than the future you chose and your disposition to a God you are truly unable to hide from at that point. Will God coerce a soul into giving what can only be freely given despite their desire to not do so? Because being "in Heaven" isn't just about being in a location, which is why it's only promised to the righteous.



Ars Goetia said:


> If salvation occurs through faith alone and that faith must be in this life then the vast majority of all humans who have ever lived and currently live will be eternally damned.



You don't know that, and the proper Christian understanding is that that's not in any man's paygrade to say (since we don't even know that of ourselves until we get to that point, and we don't know about the disposition of the deceased at the time of their death)-- that's a decision that's ultimately God's.



Ars Goetia said:


> Also, all that Jesus said about saving sinners, acting as doctor to the sick, and as a Good Shepherd? That all gets disregarded as soon as you die. At the end of time, the Good Shepard won't save his lost sheep but instead torture them endlessly.



At that point, _they're not His sheep_-- they're goats (Matthew 25:31-46).



Ars Goetia said:


> Also, we're not even just talking about a handful.



_It doesn't matter how many we're talking about._ Jesus outright says that the way to destruction is wide and many go through it, but the way to life is narrow and few take it. (Matthew 7:13).



Ars Goetia said:


> God wishes to save all but instead chooses to eternally torment those who he didn't save rather than give a second chance.



Jesus asserts through his parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" that there would be numerous chances even for the living, but the issue isn't the amount of chances they have but how they've chosen to live their lives that prevents them from listening even to someone they knew rose from the dead (Luke 16:27-31).



Ars Goetia said:


> Despite wanting to save all yet only doing so through faith, God does not show himself to all people so all would be saved.



"Faith" in God isn't merely acknowledging that God exists-- it's recognizing Him for who He is and trusting Him in that capacity. It wouldn't matter if He showed Himself to other people-- that wouldn't ensure that everyone would then have faith in Him.



Ars Goetia said:


> God forgives all who are truly penitent yet only before they die, after that he's content to torment them endlessly.



You presume that God's the one doing the torturing, rather than the spiritual distance of the unrighteous soul from God.


----------



## Shield Breaker (Apr 11, 2020)

Horus said:


> Hell is, for lack of a better term, metaphysical separation from God, who is basically existence and consciousness itself.  The guys in the example may be absolutely evil, however they still have the slimest connection to God while they are alive, because they have consciousness.
> 
> Sever that connection through sin, which it is likely they have done, and they will basically enter non-existence upon death.  Those of us who honestly strive to avoid sin as best we can, will continue to exist after death, albiet in a form we have great difficulty undetstanding because in life we exist in a very limited set of dimensions
> 
> Forget all the fire and brimstone versions of Hell, they are inaccurate.



Not quite. Hell is separation from God, but not the end of existence. It is the end of Hope, the kind of which goes beyond what is experienced with depression. With depression, after all, you can hope death ends the despair and suffering. In hell, there's not even that. It would be as if you were a blind, deaf quadriplegic cut off from the rest of the world and unable to die. You are stuck in the deepest, darkest pit of despair and hopelessness, beyond anything you have experienced on earth, and you can never escape.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 11, 2020)

Ars Goetia said:


> I'll try and offer an explanation. You're other point provides a great starting point for that.
> 
> ....
> 
> You can see in this story how the condemnation of sin but forgiveness for sinners replaced the earlier punishments from Trump's Chosen Law.



But we got to this point through secular changes and the religion adapting to new societies. Circumcision? Abandoned because the Romans didn't like it. Killing gays? Strictly relaxing on the Lords day? Abandoned due to the secularization of society. 

This holistic idea that the old testament has no value has only come around due to secularization making the book seem barbaric. As early as 1950 it was fine to publicly hold the view that they should be executed. 

Even then, the new testament still makes homosexuality a sin and prescribes execution. People ignore that but still believe in heaven and hell despite being fine with gays.


----------



## Ars Goetia (Apr 12, 2020)

Zero Day Defense said:


> But you read other verses (seemingly without reading the ones I've just mentioned) and come to the conclusion of something ultimately easier to not only swallow, but practice, and you're the one that's not operating in the way you accuse others of doing?



I've given this a lot of though to what you have said and concluded that you're right. The reasons for my conclusion were emotional and not logical. I originally was going to write a long reply going through each of your points but part way through I realized the sheer weight of history and theology that I was trying to argue against. I will say that I did not and have not ever said that anyone should practice their faith any differently. Whatever the destination, I always believed that the path was the same though longer for some. It wasn't that it was easier to "swallow", it was the only reason why I was a Christian. I'll lay out my bias as it informed most of what I was trying to argue. I'm not entirely certain on the specific rules on what is considered powerleveling. I'll try and keep things fairly general. If I fail then by all means report this post if it violates forum guidelines.  

I come from a religious family. My Father and myself (until relatively recently in my life) were the only exceptions. My Father was an atheist who hated religion in general, Christianity especially. Jesus himself makes clear in John 3:18, John 3:36, John 14:6 that he will be damned. This point is driven home in many other verses like Revelations 21:8 or really any passage to do with belief. This also the doctrine of virtually every Church in the world. My Father had me late in his life and our family was poor. He worked 15 hours a day for 6 days of the week and only took Christmas day and at most a month off every few years. He earned very little but what he did earn allowed my family to live and for me to get a good education. When he finally retired in his 70s he was a frail and dying man. Everything I have now, I credit to him. He sacrificed so much of his life for me. To know that his ultimate fate is to be tormented forever leaves me empty inside. 

It's not just my Father, though he's who I have the greatest emotional tie with. There are so many people who were dealt a bad hand in life. You say elsewhere that no one can be sure who will be damned except God. I would never say that about anyone without a specific scripture saying "x" will definitely go to Hell. However the passage you quote, Matthew 7:14, makes clear that relatively few will be saved. That so many should deserve eternal torment for beliefs held in a lifetime which comparatively lasts a blink of an eye is something so unjust to me that it seems absurd. Perhaps to God it all makes sense, but I'm not God. I even have trouble taking my mind off the temporary suffering of people and animals on this Earth. That any idea of "Paradise" could carry the ever-present knowledge that so many people are suffering and will continue to suffer eternally is to me contradictory. I don't think (and I hope that this is the case) that I could ever turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. I wanted to believe in universal reconciliation because I didn't want to turn my back on God. Thank you for giving me the clarity to know how foolish I am. I suppose I just wanted to hope against hope that there could be a happy ending for everyone. 

I still believe in God but I suppose it doesn't really matter to me anymore. If by some miracle everyone can someday see salvation then that would be nice. Looking at thing realistically though, my best hope is to be damned. That way I can be with my Father so that he doesn't need to spend his eternity alone as well as in pain. 

I was wondering whether to include what I was going to write as a defense of universalism. I decided against that. I've already wasted enough of your time on my stupidity. I want to apologize to you @Zero Day Defense for that. I also thank you for your patience.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Apr 22, 2020)

Divine reward/punishment are answers to the fact that there's no such thing as "justice" in nature, physics, life or math.

EDIT: also LOL at the idea that God has nothing better to do than reee about sex positions, sex partners and whenever somebody doesn't pay him attention. Makes God look like a dangerhair twittard. Hell, Woody Allen could star in a movie about a scientist who observes a terrarium through a telescope and lookingglasses away ants that had gay sex at some point.


----------

