What is hell?
Moderator:Metacrock
Re: What is hell?
Hell is other people, according to Sartre. I have a book called "The History of Hell" which I should consult. I'm not sure I believe that hell is a literal place or even a condition. It might be a metaphor for irrevocable separation from God or for annihilation.SayaOtonashi wrote:What is hell to you all?
Re: What is hell?
This has become a popular belief in Christianity recently as sensibilitiers have changed. Nowadays the idea of eternal torture is considered morally wrong, so many Christians have redefined hell to make it more acceptable, so God is not morally culpable for the torture of billions. Thus Christianity reflects a difference in human thinking, rather than the divine.Jim B. wrote:I'm not sure I believe that hell is a literal place or even a condition. It might be a metaphor for irrevocable separation from God or for annihilation.
Re: What is hell?
Nope, there have been annihilationists and universalists in Xianity at least as far back as the early church fathers. Alng these lines, the idea you guys so constantly invoke that that there is this simplified, monolithic thing called "Christianity" (where everybody thinks the same) and that every alternation of what you invoke as the the "core true beliefs" represents a "watering down" and a concession to secularism is very convenient to your rhetoric - but your invocations of black & white over simplifications strike me as really naive, and also seem to imply a lack of thought and research on you guys part. Iow, OF COURSE all major religions will represent human thinking and also change and adapt to changing conditions! - what else did you expect? However, you will need to show how that also infers an utter lack of of any kind of "deeper" and more universal truth if you wanna achieve your point.....
Repeating yet another quote given before.....
Repeating yet another quote given before.....
It is just that [we] have no interest in a would-be secularist austerity proving itself by a lack of sophistication about that massive and monumentally wonderful archive that are these strands of “religion.” It’s always those who do not see the seething restlessness and unease of this archive who seem always to convince themselves—and others—that it is finished, over, come to nothing. Wanting to unearth, invent, and extend emancipatory instances of solidarity without the tumultuous and shifting archive of religion seems to us like cutting down the rainforest in order to see if useful plant and animal species are lying there beneath it. Such programs are the least interesting of our tradition’s secularist fantasies.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
Dr Ward Blanton
Re: What is hell?
Very well put, met! Who is that quote by?met wrote:Nope, there have been annihilationists and universalists in Xianity at least as far back as the early church fathers. Alng these lines, the idea you guys so constantly invoke that that there is this simplified, monolithic thing called "Christianity" (where everybody thinks the same) and that every alternation of what you invoke as the the "core true beliefs" represents a "watering down" and a concession to secularism is very convenient to your rhetoric - but your invocations of black & white over simplifications strike me as really naive, and also seem to imply a lack of thought and research on you guys part. Iow, OF COURSE all major religions will represent human thinking and also change and adapt to changing conditions! - what else did you expect? However, you will need to show how that also infers an utter lack of of any kind of "deeper" and more universal truth if you wanna achieve your point.....
Repeating yet another quote given before.....
It is just that [we] have no interest in a would-be secularist austerity proving itself by a lack of sophistication about that massive and monumentally wonderful archive that are these strands of “religion.” It’s always those who do not see the seething restlessness and unease of this archive who seem always to convince themselves—and others—that it is finished, over, come to nothing. Wanting to unearth, invent, and extend emancipatory instances of solidarity without the tumultuous and shifting archive of religion seems to us like cutting down the rainforest in order to see if useful plant and animal species are lying there beneath it. Such programs are the least interesting of our tradition’s secularist fantasies.....