Really? I thought his hell was one of those ones where people suffer endlessly. Been a long time since I read that....
Hell : unrestrained fun or sportiveness <The kids were full of hell> .............. O.E. hel, helle "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions," from P.Gmc. *khaljo (cf. O.Fris. helle, O.N. hel, Ger. Hölle, Goth. halja "hell") "the underworld," lit. "concealed place," from PIE *kel- "to cover, conceal, save" (see cell). The Eng. word may be in part from O.N. Hel (from P.Gmc. *khalija "one who covers up or hides something"),
I remember watching a television program that said the Catholic church invented the idea of purgatory when people realised they had sinned to a degree that they had to go to hell. Thus condemned to hell they didnt bother going to Church anymore or give it money. To give such people a little hope and return themselves and their money to the church they invented purgatory.
I just read something similar in a book about 30 minutes ago. This person swore to what they considered (to be) holy and this was accepted as evidence that they were telling the truth. The author went on to note that if someone is already damned, breaking an oath sweared to God would not incur additional punishment (they are already damned to hell). Without hope of redemption, the most vile have no reason to change their ways.
Maybe. There are similar ideas in some branches of Hinduism too - a plane of being to which the soul goes after death for purification.
Hell differs from Purgatory neither in the infinite duration of its torments, as time is nothing in the context of eternity, nor the implied irredeemability of its charges, as all souls are ultimately redeemable. Hell differs from Purgatory simply in its requirement that those who enter "abandon hope". Purgatory is a test of the soul's struggle through hardships and difficulties, a struggle fed by hope for a better future. Purgatory ultimately rewards us with the happiness of seeing the fruition of our struggles. Hell is a test of the soul's acceptance of the limitations of its existence, bonds against which we chafe until our despair frees us. Hell ultimately rewards us with the joy of acceptance. The moment we accept the pain of hell as eternal, and give up hope, that is the moment it is no longer pain but the joy and ecstacy of incarnate life. Howard Cruse wrote a story about a man who went to Hell and came back to tell us about it - a truly Dante-esque Hell complete with lakes of fire, red-hot cinders, pitchfork-wielding demons and a totally sadistic Devil. In his own words: "I don't want people to get the idea that this is a country club; it's Hell in every sense of the word" Still, after an initial period of excruciating despair, he managed to form bonds and friendships with other damned souls, learned to take the torments in stride, and when he was finally given the oportunity to escape, he realized that this Hell was where he was happy with all his friends and he opted to stay.
Yes, and getting back to the initial subject of this thread, God is indeed guilty of Rape, as He has imposed upon us the the highly sensual and occasionally brutal experience of Life without our consent.
Two things here - first, what is meant actually by eternity? Either a timelessness or an infinite duration of time it would seem. Only under the first definition does your statement hold. Second, as regards the ultimate redeemability of souls - in fact the christian doctrine of eternal damnation isn't compatible with ST.Paul's statement that in the end, Christ will be 'all in all'. As we've already seen, according to Dante. How then does it differ from our life here? If hell is seen as an after death state, that can't be right, since we won't be 'incarnate' after death, unless we take another body. That's all well and good in fiction, but it doesn't accord with teachings of Christian, Islamic or Buddhist sources that hell is eternal and there's no getting out or coming to terms with it.
Very good point - maybe we are all simply God masturbating... BBB, As for your comments on my other post, very much appreciated. I was pretty much speaking from my own insights and opinions, but they are in the context of our greater cultural and religious traditions, so it is important to relate them. In answer to your specifics: Your quote reveals that St. Paul was ultimately a Universalist, as am I (though not of the Unitarian variety). Unfortunately, we seem to be a minority within historical Christian tradition. I see no reason for time to exist as such outside of this life, so I think of eternity as timeless rather than a time if infinite duration. Short of the absolute bliss of all-knowing and all-accepting, I would consider any continuation of the soul's journey to be an incarnation of sorts, whether another life in this world or in a different world. It seems to me that any existence that includes struggle, suffering, happiness and joy would have to be something like a biophysical, temporal universe. Howard Cruse's work is indeed fiction, and makes no pretense at being based on any religious doctrine, but for me it pointed toward a profound truth - that we find happiness not in the specific realities of our environment, but in our attitude toward those realities, and paticularly our attitude toward our neighbors. Nonetheless, attitudes can be worn down by environments and the struggle is not always easy.
Thanks Zajko - It seems that according to Advaita Vedanta, we are indeed all God - I don't think the masturbation bit would be accepted, but I see well what you mean by it. Just for the record, I don't believe in an eternal hell - but I'm sure there are temporary hells. Also, the ideas of hell and purgatory (heaven too) can be seen as relating to states of being we get into in this life, at least up to a point. I think both a 'time eternity' and a 'timeless eternity' are both possible. It could be that there are realms of subtle energy, not necessarily bio-physical. But on the whole, I agree that any form of existence (outside 'the one') would imply some kind of body - although perhaps as I say, a subtle one of some kind.
Liberated existence in an eternal spiritual body is foundational to Caitanyaite Vaisnava theology (not just in SP's writings and the Hare Krishna movement). The subtle or astral are components of the material energy and exist at frequencies we can't perceive with the five senses...they're not in essence spiritual states of being. The One or "Brahman effulgence", as Prabhupada referred to it, and the individual spiritual body of the jivas are of the same nature...purely spiritual and eternal.
I think something of the kind is highly likely - I mean in terms of subtle bodies - astral, spiritual. I also agree that the astral is not the same thing as the spiritual. It is said by some that it is the astral body we inhabit in dreams. I was using the term 'the one' only for the sake of convenience - by it I meant really God. I'm not saying Advaita is correct -
YOu know what I don't understand: Why describe God in such degrading fashion? look at the title of this thread, its just wrong.
