/lit/ - Literature

>>18950144
He is unfortunately very confused by demons.

>>18950480
>Confused by demons
What do you mean?

>>18950497
They tricked him into sadly falling away from the true and undamaged apostolic faith, which is the only way to salvation.

>>18950514
He left the catholic Church?

>all will be saved
No, because Christ did not assume your individual hypostatized will, therefore it is not healed by default even if universal human nature is healed in virtue of Christ becoming fully human.
>le evolution
No, because death did not exist before Adam's fall. God is not the creator of death.

>>18950144
if only he loved theology as much as personal theatrics

>>18950787
>personal theatrics
what does he do? i only know him by his promoting of false teachings.

>>18950858
what clued me in was a piece so embarrassing that it would struggle to get upvoted on reddit if not for the notoriety of the author. mind you, i tend to agree with the point he was trying to make deep down if you can sift it out of the cattiness which makes up the bulk of the piece.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.htm
>...the male Fox commentariat nurtures its sickly obsession with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez partly because they resent her cleverness, charisma and moral vitality, but mostly because they suspect that in high school she was one of those girls they had no hope of getting a date with (though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it)
normally i could write the sycophancy off as an excessive zeal to see one's own name get a byline on the new york times editorial page, knowing that they highly prize any christian or conservative who leaps to denounce his own side. but apparently he's this obnoxious all the time irl too.

>>18950144
His writing is great
>>18950514
Do you have an example of how he fell away?

>>18950519
He's an Orthodox, yes.
>>18950658
Can you expand on your first argument? I'm not sure I understood it.
>>18950144
I really like his rethorical style (I think he's one of the very few academics who can do witty insults right). I might be a bit biased though, mostly because of my pro-universalist bias

Universalism is pretty cool, but I don't like his disdain for analytic theology or the smugness of his "classical theism." With the quasi-perennialist way in which he employs the term, it's basically a buzzword without any real meaning. In his book The Experience of God, he tries to paint his conception of "classical theism" as some perennial core which unites all the religions. So, he has to employ very sloppy hermeneutics and do a lot of cherrypicking to find people from other traditions who agree with him. He claims that his beliefs about God are just the same as "orthodox" Islam, Hinduism, etc. But excluding the fact that it doesn't really make sense to speak about "orthodox Hinduism," the mainstream view in Islamic theology has always been a rejection of the trademark doctrine of classical theism, namely divine simplicity.

>Jesus: "Then [the King] will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels [...] they will go away to eternal punishment"
>Jesus: "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’"
>Jesus: "And the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham from afar, with Lazarus by his side [...]"
>David Bentley Hart: "ummm ackshually.................."

>>18951677
Doesn't eternal hell contradict God's omnibenevolence and divine justice?

>>18951725
Not at all, because it is a free choice to reject God's grace of eternal life and instead choose to spend eternity where you wanted to go, eg. the place most ontologically distant from God. On the other hand, it might contradict God's omnibenevolence to rape somebody's free will and make them come worship Him in heaven against their will, even if they despised and cursed Him throughout the entirety of their mortal lives.

>>18951477
>Can you expand on your first argument? I'm not sure I understood it.

Universal salvation (the notion that all will experience ever-well-being in the end times) is condemned heresy and doesn't make sense with Orthodox anthropology. Read St. Maximus the Confessor.
In eternity, all of our human nature will be restored to the pre-fall state in virtue of Christ taking on humanity in the incarnation and resurrecting, but your personal will is individual and Christ does not break or overtake it somehow. Healing the will is only possible by a cooperation with Christ. Your usage of your will dictates your mode of existence in eternity. Since for the unrepentant sinner the direct experience of Christ is a negative one, he will necessarily experience ever-ill-being because his will is contrary to Christ's. This is the same principle of being harmed by unworthily partaking of Christ's precious Body and Blood, the grace in the sacraments is inherently torturous for one who is opposed to Christ.

>For nature does not contain the characteristics of the super-natural, just as it does not contain the laws of what is against nature. By ‘supernatural’ I mean the divine and inconceivable joy, which God naturally creates when he is united by grace to those who are worthy. By ‘against nature’, I mean the unspeakable anguish which is involved in the deprivation of this (joy), which God naturally creates when He is united with the unworthy against grace. For God is united with all, according to the quality of the fundamental state of each person; in a way that He understands, he supplies sensation to each one, corresponding to the way each is made by Him to receive the One Who is completely united to all, at the end of the ages


>>18951725
>omnibenevolence
No, since God freely shares his grace with all of humanity, but some people simply choose to reject it.
>divine justice
How is punishing criminals unjust?

>>18951527
>Universalism is pretty cool
Having millions of sexual partners is also considered 'cool', but it is also outside of the Logos, as all falsehoods are. Holding to falsehood ultimately leads to being outside of Logos, the only way to salvation.

>>18951527
Classical Theism is a conception of God that derives from Greek metaphysics, especially Socrates/Plato/Aristotle. It does apply to the three Abrahamic religions and also to certain Pagans (whether it also applies to some Eastern religions I can't comment on).
I don't know what is the "mainstream" Islamic view (if there is such a thing) but the two more well known Islamic philosophers are Averroes and Avicenna. Both are Classical Theists and uphold divine simplicity.

>>18951527
>He claims that his beliefs about God are just the same as "orthodox" Islam, Hinduism, etc
What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to employ to believe that Islam professes the God who would do this to His creation or willingly die for them?

>>18951811
Averroes and Avicenna are outliers. The three main theological schools in Sunni Islam (Ashʿarīs, Māturīdīs, and Ḥanbalīs/Atharīs) all reject divine simplicity. Many from these schools even reject divine timelessness and impassibility. This is completely different from the consensus you have on certain tenets of classical theism throughout most of Christian history.

>>18952111
>reject divine timelessness and impassibility

>>18952111
Hm, interesting. But that may be enough for Hart's argument if he can show that Classical Theism can be found in all abrahamic religions, whether it is the dominant view or not. And then the question would be whether he can plausibly argue that the view can be found in certain Eastern religions as well.
Maybe you are right that Hart uses "Classical Theism" vaguely so he can fit everything he wants under the label, as you said he is not exactly the most rigorous of thinkers. Or so they say.

>>18950858
he's very opinionated and his writings make it seem like he's pronouncing his opinions to be unquestionable and unassailable truths. I'm an ESL so I'm not well positioned to comment on his prose but most of the time reading English is not a problem for me. with DBH however I am struggling to penetrate through his prose.
>>18951043 is a good example of what I mean

>>18951761
Sure thing, bit the doctrine of eternal Hell states that once I'm in it, I cannot leave it. What if I change my mind, I truly repent and I genuinely want to be reunited with God (maybe after having spent a period of time suffering for my sins)?
Just to make it clear, I dont have any problem with the idea of Hell, my problem concerns instead the eternity of damnation, especially when it is not voluntary.
>>18951763
>No, since God freely shares his grace with all of humanity, but some people simply choose to reject it
Do you really think that those who are in Hell eternally choose to stay right there? Personally I wouldnt ever choose to be tormented forever in Hell.
And in case you answer by saying "you cant change your mind in Hell because there's no time", then my question is: why did God set up things this way? He could have used an eschatologic framework like the one of the Hinduists or of Plato, in which sinners can purify their souls through multiple life cycles: this would have led to a completely universal salvation, which seems to be better than a partial one.
>How is punishing criminals unjust?
Because the punishment, when it's eternal damnation, is disproportionate to the crime. I would have very little problems with non-eternal Hell, it's the "eternal" part that irks me.

>>18952247
>But that may be enough for Hart's argument if he can show that Classical Theism can be found in all abrahamic religions, whether it is the dominant view or not.
Obviously that's true, but that would be a rather trivial argument. There are a lot of beliefs which "can be found" across multiple different religious traditions if you look hard enough and are neutral about questions of orthodoxy. You can find atheistic ideas in Christianity (e.g., Death of God theology), just as you can find them in Buddhism and Hinduism. That might make for an interesting comparison, but it's not really saying anything profound.
>then the question would be whether he can plausibly argue that the view can be found in certain Eastern religions as well
Well, that depends on how you want to construe classical theism. Hart mainly looks at Vedanta, particularly Shankara and Ramanuja. But Shankara is a monist and Ramanuja is a panentheist who denies divine simplicity. Madhva is probably the closest to Christian classical theism, but he also denies divine simplicity. If you're willing to accommodate monism, I suppose you could say Shankara fits the mold, but most classical theists aren't going to believe that something like that is compatible with their theology of transcendence.

>>18952317
>repent
>change my mind
Consequences of the fall. All of this does not exist in the healed and transfigured creation.

>especially when it is not voluntary
It is always voluntary. Your voluntary choice of not following Christ is what leads you to experience hell.

>why did God set up things this way
Because wavering or deliberating to choose between good and evil is a product of the fall (gnomic will) and is a corruption of human will. In the end times, you cannot turn from evil to good because the ability to choose is eliminated itself from the human nature as a product of the fall. All of human nature is restored fully (even in the damned, since Christ died for them too and assumed universal humanity) but their own choosing isn't denied or distorted. This is why Orthodox Christians who die in sin but still within the bounds of the Church can hope to be saved before the Day of Judgement, but someone who is outside of Christ has absolutely no hope.

>He could have used an eschatologic framework like the one of the Hinduists or of Plato
Eschatology isn't disconnected from everything else in creation or God's plan. It is all tied together, a false view on eschatology necessarily leads to falsehoods somewhere else (like in soteriology, the doctrine of the fall and anthropology in case of affirming universalism).

>is disproportionate to the crime
Says who, a human with a fallen mind? How can you determine this? Who are you to say how God should judge those chose sin over Christ?
>I would have very little problems with non-eternal Hell, it's the "eternal" part that irks me.
It should irk you. That's why lying about it being non-eternal is extremely inhumane to people who could end up experiencing it.

Smart guy, read mountains of books, but he's a perennialist and sounds like a liberal Catholic... yet, there are curiosities about his mind:
https://publicorthodoxy.org/2019/05/10/seraphim-rose-david-bentley-hart/
Worth reading 100%.

>>18951846
Someone who spoke with him said that he claimed Hinduism was revealed by angels... but about Islam? He's always critical of it, he also promotes Maximus the Confesor, which rose about the same time as Islam and is venerated as a Saint... so can't be both.

>>18952538
>he claimed Hinduism was revealed by angels
Well, he wasn't wrong...
>And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light

>>18952317
>I would have very little problems with non-eternal Hel
>nooo eternal hell as taught by Christ was just a metaphor it's a translation issue! the Holy Spirit can't overcome language!

>>18952551
Yes. I don't know what discussion the guy had with Hart, so I lack the context of how he put it. He questioned him in a way to test if he's truly a perennialist, which he got confirmation for... kinda....

But sure, demons by nature (which is still good, as originally created) are angels, just stuck in an evil will - perpetually so, demons in Scripture knew Jesus to be the son of Most High... Apostles witnessing miracles and being hinted constantly by Jesus, didn't believe until He rose.
So this covers both belief in God and the fact that "angels" can reveal new religions.

Hart was my intro to a lot of fields, so I don't hate the guy, meanwhile the opinion of many Orthodox... not very good.
And to be honest his takes (on perennialist topics) often smell of confirmation biases.

>>18952591
It could be annihilation. And that was a widespread opinion in early Church.

>>18952592
>so I don't hate the guy
I don't hate the guy either, I just hate the heresy he spreads which leads people into damnation. I would be extremely happy if he stopped it and turned to the truth.

>>18952603
>annihilation
It was condemned by the Holy Spirit.

>>18952606
Then we can hope for a sort of purgation, in the key of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Isaac.

>It was condemned by the Holy Spirit.
But I'm not sure if we can throw away the opinion that annihilation is still on the table when everyone is conformed into Christ and the world is restored. After all the Scriptures promise evil is utterly destroyed in the end.

I never understand the need of people to distort doctrine because of personal emotions. Shouldn't people follow Christ because they care for Truth (who is Christ) more than anything else, even their families?

>>18952489
>Obviously that's true, but that would be a rather trivial argument.
Well, Hart would want to defend the view that there is a common metaphysical doctrine that can be found in all "important" religious traditions. In order to do that, he would at the very least need to show that there is such a common metaphysical doctrine. This is the bare minimum he needs for his case to even get off the ground. If he can't even do that his quasi-Perennialism collapses.
>Well, that depends on how you want to construe classical theism. Hart mainly looks at Vedanta, particularly Shankara and Ramanuja. But Shankara is a monist and Ramanuja is a panentheist who denies divine simplicity.
I don't know the details about Eastern religions. Is Shankara's position close to that of Permenides? If so, Hart could say that it falls under Classical Theism, even if he disagrees with other Classical Theists in affirming that only God exists and nothing else.
I actually think Buddhism may be a bigger trouble for him. From what I 've seen it's hard to find anything analogous to Classical Theism there. The view of the Self being an illusion reminds me of Hume if anything. Although the ethics may be similar.

>>18952489
>Obviously that's true, but that would be a rather trivial argument.
Well, Hart would want to defend the view that there is a common true metaphysical doctrine that can be found in all "important" religious traditions. In order to do that, he would at the very least need to show that there is such a common metaphysical doctrine. This is the bare minimum he needs for his case to even get off the ground. If he can't even do that his quasi-Perennialism collapses.
>Well, that depends on how you want to construe classical theism. Hart mainly looks at Vedanta, particularly Shankara and Ramanuja. But Shankara is a monist and Ramanuja is a panentheist who denies divine simplicity.
I don't know the details about Eastern religions. Is Shankara's position close to that of Permenides? If so, Hart could say that it falls under Classical Theism, even if he disagrees with other Classical Theists in affirming that only God exists and nothing else.
I actually think Buddhism may be a bigger trouble for him. From what I 've seen it's hard to find anything analogous to Classical Theism there. The view of the Self being an illusion reminds me of Hume if anything. Although the ethics may be similar.

>>18950480
>>18950787
>>18951451
>>18951477
Thanks anons!

>>18951043
I think in the end, he has done those articles for money.
He made a lot of vague or seemingly contradictory statements on his political affiliation; once he tried to cope out by saying he's actually a member of the DSA, but that was before the cringe videos from their meetings released, meanwhile he deleted that article.
From of my notes on the guy:
https://pastebin.com/2yJGS8rv
(the system thinks I'm spamming)

He criticizes 20th century materialistic collectivist experiments, claims Marx is guilty of what happened in Soviet Union, at least via vol. 3 and then he keeps validating ideas from Marx in his prose and parsing the world around with a seemingly materialistic lens.

>>18952666
>Is Shankara's position close to that of Permenides?
The two have been compared in the literature, but I'm not familiar enough with Parmenides to have an opinion.
>Buddhism may be a bigger trouble for him.
I would agree with this, but Hart only mentions Buddhist concepts in passing in The Experience of God, so it's difficult to gauge the precise nature of his position vis-à-vis Buddhism and just how committed he is to it. He thinks the Mahāyāna idea of the "Buddha-nature" has similarities with his view of God, but he does not elaborate on this.

>>18952648
>we can hope for a sort of purgation
Only before the Day of Judgement and only for Orthodox Christians by the prayers of the Church who died in hope of salvation and resurrection of the dead.

>annihilation is still on the table
>After all the Scriptures promise evil is utterly destroyed in the end.
All creatures are good by nature and are are thus not removed, but transfigured to remove consequences of the fall on their natures (which includes ever-being for humans in a united body-soul mode of being, as death is a consequence of the fall).

>>18952591
I am not contesting the doctrine, I am just trying to understand it. The question stands: doesn't eternal damnation contradict God's omnibenevolence and justice?
>>18952518
>It is always voluntary. Your voluntary choice of not following Christ is what leads you to experience hell
Sure, but after having experienced it I might change my mind on this whole ordeal? I guess there might be some Don Giovanni-like guys who might never repent, but I would assume that most people would eventually repent for their sin and desire to be reunited with God. If I'm going to Hell I assume I would hold these desires.
>In the end times, you cannot turn from evil to good because the ability to choose is eliminated itself from the human nature as a product of the fall
I mean, if Im going to Hell tomorrow my ability to choose will be revoked before the end of times. Regardless, why would God bring the end of times before having achieved universal salvation? It seems like a flawed plan, and an unjust one at that. I assume that a benevolent God would want everyone to be saved, and, being omnipotent, could offer all the tools possibly available to a finite soul to reach that goal. The example of Plato and the Hinduists come to mind. In those frameworks everyone can potentially be saved, through genuine repentance, religiosity and virtue.
>Says who, a human with a fallen mind? How can you determine this? Who are you to say how God should judge those chose sin over Christ?
I suppose that God has disclosed moral truths to us, and that as such we are, up to a certain degree, justified in judging him too, from a moral standpoint. I think we do this already when we say stuff as simple as "God is good" or "God is benevolent", or whenever we claim that a certain crime is ungodly
>It should irk you. That's why lying about it being non-eternal is extremely inhumane to people who could end up experiencing it.
Maybe, but my doubts still remain. Anyway i have never promoted this view in public, if that concerns you

>>18950144
He cares more about pandering to his progressive contemporaries than actually speaking the truth about Christianity.

>>18950144
Fantastic writer and rhetorician. Of all the religious writers I've read he's come the closest to converting me to Christianity.

>>18952799
>doesn't eternal damnation contradict God's omnibenevolence and justice
It doesn't contradict His omnibenevolence because He resurrects even the sinners, wanting their repentance all throughout their life and calling them to it, but He cannot change their subjective negative experience of the end times due to their own choices leading to their inability to experience God in a positive way. How would it contradict his justice?
>after having experienced it I might change my mind on this whole ordea
Changing your mind from good to evil (or evil to good) is only a consequence of the fall and does not exist in the end times. It is not normal for the human to be able to deliberate between good and evil. The faculty you use (corrupted free will, aka gnomic will) will no longer exist, since it will be purified from human nature. There will only be non-fallen creation experiencing God in its various modes of being, but this will be torment for the sinner since his (now fixed) will is opposed to Christ's.
>my ability to choose will be revoked before the end of times
If you die within the Church, with your will aligned to Christ but were too weak to fight the passions, you can still have hope of salvation before the Day of Judgement. We still liturgically pray for those who died in the Church.
>being omnipotent, could offer all the tools possibly available to a finite soul to reach that goal
Indeed, this is precisely what Christ does. Christ already did everything for our salvation, our only goal is to repent from our sins and our pride to be able to participate in it.
>Regardless, why would God bring the end of times before having achieved universal salvation?
Because God foresees everyone who will choose to follow Him and be in His Kingdom. God knows that there are people who will choose not to do so. When everyone who wishes to be saved in His Church enters it, time will end.
>In those frameworks everyone can potentially be saved
Because they falsely presuppose eternality of fallen time and reincarnation. History will end with Christ's second coming and there is no reincarnation or pre-existence of souls.
> I think we do this already when we say stuff as simple as "God is good" or "God is benevolent"
These statements aren't a judgment based on some pre-established human morality. These are just expressions of God's self-revelation to us of possessing these attributes. No true morality exists outside or independently of the Logos.
>my doubts still remain
If you believe in the Holy Spirit and His ability to lead the Church into truth and preserve true teaching, then you cannot really doubt it. You may not understand it, but you cannot really doubt it if you have faith. It's impossible to deny that there are ecumenical councils condemning non-eternality of the torments and that the consensus of the fathers clearly teaches eternal hell.

>>18952963
Why should I accept the authority of the Church, in your opinion? I admit that so far I have looked at the question from the perspective of natural theology (basically, philosophy).
I havent grown up in a religious family, and so far God has shown me no sign kf the validity of the Catholic Church. I dont know why I shkuld pick it over, say, Protestant Churches, or Hinduist sects, or whatever

>>18951477
>>He's an Orthodox, yes.
and this means he's tricked by demons? Ridiculous papist lies.

>>18953104
>Why should I accept the authority of the Church, in your opinion?
Because it is the only coherent historical teaching which has the fruits of tangible forgiveness of sins even in this life.
>I dont know why I shkuld pick it over, say, Protestant Churches, or Hinduist sects, or whatever
I'm Orthodox, not Catholic. I would pick it because it still has preserved the spirituality of the early church. Protestantism is just a distortion and clearly not original, and Hinduism doesn't really care about truth, only about practice. If you want to destroy your identity, then Hinduism is the path to follow for sure even from the Orthodox perspective, at least it will give you what it promises even if you end up eternally regretting it.

armchair traddies are hilarious

>>18953104
>so far God has shown me no sign kf the validity of the Catholic Church
Have you asked for this in prayer?
>>18953206
Traditionalism is the only true view to hold within any system. It's self-refuting that innovations will lead to truth if the source of the tradition is supposedly divine and unchanging.

>When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
EXCEPT FOR THE GUYS IN HELL RIGHT....
NONO NO HE THERE TO CAUSING YOU LOVING PAIN, NOT TO HEAL YOU BUT JUST TO CAUSE YOU PAIN FOR ENTERNATY
AND THATS ACTUALLY GOOD

>>18953233
>EXCEPT FOR THE GUYS IN HELL RIGHT.
No, God will be in all, even the sinner, who will experience this as torment because of his hatred of God. You can't blame God for your hatred of Him. He didn't do anything to deserve it.

>>18953271
got it so God loves you so much hell knowingly cause you pain for all eternity, not to save you mind you, because in your twisted world God is impotent to do that, but just for the heck of it

>God's love > You Suffering >God's love > You Suffering God's love > You Suffering >God's love > You Suffering for all eternity
your vision of an all loving God in all (ie suffering and torment is part of your eternal vision of salvasion ie. God is suffering and torment)

>God's love > You Suffering > salvation
hart's vision of an all loving God (ie the fires of God's love actually heal the sinner, thus becoming all in all ie. God is not suffering and torment)

ill let the thread decide what makes more sense
reply with a smiley if you agree :)

>>18953349
>in your twisted world God is impotent to do that
God cannot force you to love Him. He calls you to it, but does not force you. Salvation (becoming Christ-like) is a synergistic cooperation, not an imposition.
> ie. God is suffering and torment
No, rather God's love is experienced as torment by those who hate him because they are wicked (by actions and choice, not by nature). Suffering is completely alien to God by nature.
>hart's vision
Doesn't matter what his vision is when God's vision differs.

>>18952489
>particularly Shankara and Ramanuja. But Shankara is a monist and Ramanuja is a panentheist who denies divine simplicity
Lol, nope. Shankara maintains that Brahman is intrinsically different from and transcendent to the universe, like most of classical theism, and hence isn't a monist. Ramanuja holds that the universe and world are quite literally the body of Brahman, for Ramanuja the world is not pervaded by God's energy, the world *is* God.

So, if anything, Ramanuja is closer to monism, and Shankara's non-dualism doesn't fit neatly into any category but would be closer to panentheism if you had to choose one. I don't understand why, but this seems to be a common misconception where people assume these two thinkers have the opposite positions that they actually do have.

>>18953349
>the fires of God's love actually heal the sinner
God cannot heal that which you deny to offer up for healing.

>>18953423
>God is all in all
>eternal suffering and torment is felt
Youve basically already said it but for the sake of everyone in the thread just say it outright. That in your eschatological vision part of God's being is Suffering and torment
NONO BUT DIDNT YOU READ I SAID THAT ACTUALLY JUST GODS LOVE
then God is not all in all yet
God is either all in all and there is no suffering
or
God is not all and all
or (in your mind)
God is all and all (but God isnt so good after all) (and yes even if that pain and suffering is caused by Gods love, that pain and suffering still exists and is God if God is truly all in all)

>>18953442
>God impotent

>>18950144
Just look what you’ve done, OP. Now all the Jesus-larpers are fighting like bugs in a jar.

>>18952733
he had a death penalty piece i thought was really tendentious where he was a douche to ed feser for no reason too https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/further-reflections-on-capital-punishment-and-on-edward-feser/

>>18953488
>>eternal suffering and torment is felt
Yes, your corrupted and demonized will leads you to feel suffering from witnessing God's love. It (like sin) does not exist as substance in God or anywhere, but is the mode of being someone who denies God necessarily experiences.
>either
>not
>or
Bugman dialectics. God is absolutely good and humans feel this good as evil because they chose wickedness.

>>18953496
God has given you the choice to be saved. He will not force Himself onto those who do not want Him. It's not His fault if you do not follow Him. All of this is just trying to play judaistic pilpul to try and justify why your judgement is more righteous than God's.

>>18953441
Who interprets Shankara as holding a non-monistic position? Every source I've read has called him a monist.

>>18953539
got it, God will not be all in all
as convincing as your internet trad talking points have been, Ill think Ill stick with Paul

>>18953575
>God will not be all in all
Your argumentation reduces to absurdity, because it would also work to show that "evil" (as privation of good) existing means God is evil. You are saying that the subjective experience of suffering by a corrupted human means suffering is the substance of God. It's literal nonsense.
>Ill think Ill stick with Paul
Or rather with your false dialectical interpretation of St. Paul.

>>18953633
your right forgive me i was reading it wrong
i found the real verse
>When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all, except when he isn't.

>>18951677
>aionian
>where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’
Unless God makes it so that the worm dies, and the fire is quenched.
>And the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham from afar, with Lazarus by his side
The same Hades and Death that will be thrown into the eternal fire? (Revelations 20:14)

>>18951763
>How is punishing criminals unjust?
Because it is completely useless and flies in the face of all love. Love desires to have its beloved, it does not let the beloved suffer in its presence. And with God, all things are possible. Punishment without a rehabilitative purpose simply fails to see the purpose of punishment, and that is what eternal darkness and fire are.

>>18951785
False equivalence. Ideas of universalism are not the same as sexual promiscuity or adultery.

>>18952518
>Consequences of the fall.
How do we know this for fact? Or do we just conjecture, and what seems logical and unassailable is taken as truth? Tell me why being apart from God would be allowed to exist in the "healed creation," but the opportunity to be correct to God does not.

>Says who, a human with a fallen mind?
Then how can the church determine the truth, if it is all the deliberations of fallen minds? Is it not presumptuous to assume they have divine inspiration? Can the divinity of their ideas be proven?

>Who are you to say how God should judge those chose sin over Christ?
Who is anyone to say? And yet we say. But it flies in the face of everything we are told about God; it is not a matter of misgivings, but a matter of logical contradiction, or at least an invitation to reconfigure our understanding of God as a loving, purposeful entity that desires to see the sinner be saved. But we are given one, fallen, woefully short and misunderstood attempt, which we judge as enough. The will we use within this existence is judged as sober and powerful enough to meaningfully deny God. By whose authority do we judge that one can choose to deny God, or that one deserves eternal punishment for it? Can I not claim the same authority (ignoring whatever unfounded presuppositions you will cite or eisegete)

>That's why lying about it being non-eternal is extremely inhumane to people who could end up experiencing it.
Pascal's Wager is no way to live life by

>>18953689
>Unless God makes it so that the worm dies, and the fire is quenched.

>>18950144
More of a polemicist than a philosopher

>>18953662
>noooo why does evil exist god is a meanie

denies hell, isn't a christian.

>>18953565
>Who interprets Shankara as holding a non-monistic position?
Shankara himself interprets himself as holding this position, so does Guénon.

>whatever the opponent regards as an attribute of the self is admitted as consisting of name and form, and the self is admitted to be different from these. Witness the Śruti passage, ‘Ākāśa (the self-effulgent One) is verily the cause of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman’ (Ch. VIII. xiv. 1), and also ‘Let me manifest name and form’ (Ch. VI. iii. 2). Name and form have origin and dissolution, but Brahman is different from them
- Śaṅkara, Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya 2.1.20.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117945.html

> In this phenomenal world everything is conditioned by name and form, and Brahman alone is beyond them
- Śaṅkara, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.3.41.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras/d/doc62934.html

>noo hell cant be eternal even though Jesus says it! it goes against the liberal progessed sentiment! its mean!

>>18953727
>Noooo it was a translation issue! The Church Fathers and the Holy Spirit misunderstood it!

>>18952963
>He resurrects even the sinners, wanting their repentance all throughout their life and calling them to it
Why does His will immediately stop after the moment of death. It is as if He is immobilized by your doctrines (i.e., the soul can no longer repent after resurrection because the changing of mind is a consequence of the fall, and even God is helpless to introduce an exception here; or the soul cannot repent in Hell before the resurrection because-?)

>He cannot change their subjective negative experience of the end times due to their own choices
With God, all things are possible. Even in such a way that does not violate their free will (although between free will and Hell, I'm sure most would choose that "softening of the Heart," or violation/alteration of the Free Will needed to perfect one).

>It is not normal for the human to be able to deliberate between good and evil
How, then, was sin introduced into the Garden of Eden? Man was able to choose to obey or not to obey God.

>The faculty you use (corrupted free will, aka gnomic will) will no longer exist, since it will be purified from human nature
It is not necessary for the faculty to be removed, it could simply be bolstered so as to prevent it from straying from the Godly path.

>but this will be torment for the sinner since his (now fixed) will is opposed to Christ's
Christ's will is to see the sinner saved, no? Or I suppose love only goes so far.

>Because God foresees everyone who will choose to follow Him and be in His Kingdom
Why did He not fore-make it so that all would will to follow Him? Why did He initiate reality so that it would all lead to this- the broad path to destruction? I suppose that if no one save for the Virgin Mary entered Heaven, we should be satisified with such a God, too.

>You may not understand it, but you cannot really doubt it if you have faith
If by faith you mean that belonging to God, you are begging the question.

>It's impossible to deny that there are ecumenical councils condemning non-eternality of the torments and that the consensus of the fathers clearly teaches eternal hell.
It's impossible to verify that any historical figure ever really existed, and it was not all a cruel fabrication. But that may be too /x/ for you, shockingly.

>>18950144
All he talked about was wine and whores and Bessy and her tits, and he expected too much of Ned as well. Not a fan!

>>18953719
>>18953727
>>18953732
the power of trad larpers

>>18953741
>Why does His will immediately stop after the moment of death. It is as if He is immobilized by your doctrines (i.e., the soul can no longer repent after resurrection because the changing of mind is a consequence of the fall, and even God is helpless to introduce an exception here; or the soul cannot repent in Hell before the resurrection because-?)

because he literally says as much in the parable of the richman and lazarus.

>>18953205
>Because it is the only coherent historical teaching
Worldly coherency does not mean that it is incorrect, or that you have fully understood whatever it is you consider "incoherent."

>the fruits of tangible forgiveness of sins even in this life
Because it lays claim to this, and interprets, and possibly even forges, although I will abstain from further conspiracies for now.

>>18953216
>if the source of the tradition is supposedly divine and unchanging
It could be that the tradition, early on in the Church, was completely misinterpreted, and only as of late are we discovering true Christianity. Or that it is all culturally and historically relative, and there is no "true" tradition, only appearances.

>>18953271
>You can't blame God for your hatred of Him
Yet I thank Him for all of the good that happens to me, and if I make a small move away from Him, He will harden my heart as a result (just as making a small movement of faith towards Him will cause Him to draw you to Him, or so I've heard).

>>18953423
>God cannot force you to love Him. He calls you to it, but does not force you
His call is awfully weak if efficacity is what He desires. He should employ the means sin employs; when you see a beautiful woman, you are overcome by her beauty, and you want to have her. God doesn't reveal Himself, so most will end up "denying God" and going to Hell without having even had a chance to properly deny a sliver of His beauty, truth, and goodness. What they do deny is the corrupt, land-owning church and monasteries fraught with homosexuality and scandals.

>Doesn't matter what his vision is when God's vision differs.
How do you know God's vision? We have syllogisms, and we have interpretations, but where are the true directives from God? Not interpretable, translatable, forgeable verses, but something direct and undeniable? How can denial of God mean anything when you deny the smoke and mirrors He left behind? Men are not contemptible, they are weak and ignorant. They do not deserve punishment, they deserve perfection.

>>18953442
All because God made you unable to offer anything up for healing. "God cannot do what He would like to because He created the system thusly."

>>18953539
>Yes, your corrupted and demonized will leads you to feel suffering from witnessing God's love
It seems as if fallenness persists for want of preserving some tortured "free will." A will that is not even free anymore, because you are unable to change it once you see its consequences; but this is all a fantasy.

What do we know about the state of the soul? How can we discuss the psychology of the soul when we are not even there? Visions, dogmas, "voices" can easily deceive, and broad is the path to destruction, similarly broad is the ecclesiastical path.

>>18953709
https://youtu.be/gelyA7tmHLY

>>18953727
Or rather it goes against the antique, regressed moral sentiments put on by modern wastoids playing at "preservers of tradition." See how meaningless this statement was? So meaningless is yours, unless you believe what is old is correct, which would be based entirely on your moral sentiments, which, as with the universalists, can be utterly flawed (i.e., how could God allow His holy church to be deceived at the moment of its inception, and for so long? How can all of these "based, imposing Byzantine icons of saints" and bearded raggedy ascetics all be wrong, if they are even real?)

>>18953783
It does not "literally say as much," it just says:

>But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
Where's the eternality here? It doesn't even make sense; the rich man received only so many good things, and yet he will receive infinite bad things on a completely different ontological level compared to Lazarus' sufferings?

>And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
Of course not, or else they'd just cross to Heaven. They are helpless by themselves, relying on God to bridge the chasm.

I hope when I die I have enough cosmic good boy points to make it into heaven. There I can finely get revenge on my bullies and laugh at them while they suffer in hell.

>>18953828
based and aquinas-pilled

>>18952952
Sounds promising

>>18953502
It's a feast for the eyes

>>18953726
That's quite possibly the most reductive interpretation of Shankara. His statements vis-a-vis the nature of Brahman aren't definitions of him.

A little intellect is required to understand the nuance there. An intellect you lack.

>>18953786
>>18953741

>What do we know
>Why did He not
>there is no "true" tradition

>>18953741
>Why does His will immediately stop after the moment of death
Because He has given you enough time to repent while you live. If you do not take this gift, then you will be judged accordingly.
> Even in such a way that does not violate their free will
Impossible, because their will dictates their negative experience of God. It is predicated on their will being a certain way for them to negatively experience God.
>How, then, was sin introduced into the Garden of Eden?
Adam chose between two perceived goods (tree of knowledge and obeying God), not between good and evil. He was deceived as he had imperfect knowledge, but the experience itself of trying to deliberate if God actually said it (i.e if God is actually good) is what caused the fall.
>It is not necessary
According to whom?
>Christ's will is to see the sinner
But the sinner's will is not to be saved. You cannot love by force. It is a voluntary action.
>Why did He not fore-make it so that all would will to follow Him
Because Christ did not create bugman robots, but beings made in His image who can choose to freely love Him, as He freely loves us.
>Why did He initiate reality so that it would all lead to this- the broad path to destruction
To save those who would love Him. Even if 99% people die, Christ created the world for the 1% who choose Him. Christians are the ones who He created the world for and everyone is called to join this group.
>It's impossible to verify that any historical figure ever really existed
Only if you are completely tied down into the fallen material world and have willingly denied yourself all knowledge of truth.

>>18953786
>and possibly even forges
You cannot forge the experience of sin and the experience of being freed from it.
>How do you know God's vision?
Because He told us. We have a personal connection with Him. This allows us to be free from onions-skepticism and doubting the existence of truth (which is essentially all of your post). You can come join us too to if you want to share in this joy.

>>18955387
> That's quite possibly the most reductive interpretation of Shankara
I’ve read practically his complete works, he couldn’t be more clear in them that Brahman is not identical with the universe, the universe is changing and comprised of finite objects with shape, color and form, Brahman is infinite, unchanging, colorless, formless, soundless etc. Maya comprises everything within the universe but maya isn’t the same as Brahman, it’s Brahman’s power/energy which is contingent upon Him. This allows maya to be sublated as false in realization, whereas Brahman as the enduring reality can never be sublated. I’m not sure why you feel the need to toss insults at me, it’s you who doesn’t know what he is talking about here.

> His statements vis-a-vis the nature of Brahman aren't definitions of him.
Yes, Shankara explicitly defines the essential nature of Brahman in his commentary on Tattiriya Upanishad 2.1.1. as being “satyam, jnanam, anantam”, that is as “truth, knowledge, infinite”, nothing else shares this essential nature of Brahman, it belongs to Brahman; and in his commentary on that verse he says that Brahman is to be distinguished from unreal things because of Brahman being unchanging, and he cites the Chandogya passage (6.1.4.) which says “all changes are mere words, (existing) in name only”. And in his commentary on Bhagavad-Gita 2.16 Shankara writes that in every single moment we have two awarenesses, the awareness of the unchanging reality of Brahman and the awareness of the false object imagined in Brahman like a mirage in a desert. So, it’s abundantly clear that for Shankara, Brahman is different from and transcendent to the universe.

>>18953813
>entirely on your moral sentiments,
It is based on my faith in the Holy Spirit to make truth known to His Church and to preserve it throughout time. I don't care what this truth is compared to my useless secularist or temporal sentiments, I will still follow it.

>>18955453
>Because He has given you enough time to repent while you live. If you do not take this gift, then you will be judged accordingly.
"Enough time" is begging the question; I could be given decades more or less and you would still consider it "enough time" because "it's all the time God gave me."

>If you do not take this gift, then you will be judged accordingly.
Who is to say that it is a singular gift, and that God will not allow man to repent after death? Why is everything so this-life-centric to you?

>Impossible, because their will dictates their negative experience of God. It is predicated on their will being a certain way for them to negatively experience God.
What part of "with God, all things are possible" did you not hear? Perhaps no man's will can possibly be set against God, or they will be shown their error and they will repent; there are innumerable possibilities. One's will is a fickle thing, and can easily be guided towards the right path.

>Adam chose between two perceived goods (tree of knowledge and obeying God), not between good and evil. He was deceived as he had imperfect knowledge, but the experience itself of trying to deliberate if God actually said it (i.e if God is actually good) is what caused the fall.
How do you know any of this? So remember this is all conjecture, even if masked as "inspired dogma"

So, you say "man cannot deliberate between good and evil before the fall," and yet Adam was able to enter a state of knowledge of good and evil without deliberating between good and evil. Assuming this is even true, and prelapsarian man fell without knowing good and evil, what is preventing the resurrected man (who would normally be damned) from rising to Heaven?

>According to whom?
Doesn't need to be a "whom" or authority, it is simply not logically necessary. There are other possibilities. You say "it will no longer exist because it will be destroyed (as if it is impossible for it to exist in resurrected man because it is seen as necessarily fallen or lowly)." I rebutted this.

>Because Christ did not create bugman robots, but beings made in His image who can choose to freely love Him, as He freely loves us.
Aside from buzzwords, you have to weight the evils of being made not free and being made to eventually suffer eternally and infinitely for temporal acts. I'm sure all of the buzzwords and soijacks in the world can't convince people that free Hell is preferable to forced Heaven (as if it would even be forced, it would just be fate, you wouldn't feel forced). This brings us to the next point:

>But the sinner's will is not to be saved. You cannot love by force. It is a voluntary action.
When there is a will, there is a way; if Christ wants the sinner to be saved, He will find a way to bring him back into the fold. And of course, sinning in this world does not mean that the sinner makes such grand deliberations as "does not want to be saved," or hates God, or rejects the most Holy. It doesn't follow.

>>18955453
>To save those who would love Him. Even if 99% people die, Christ created the world for the 1% who choose Him. Christians are the ones who He created the world for and everyone is called to join this group.
So He did predestine some for saving, others for damnation. It's as I have said, if God exists, all things are permissible. If 1% are saved, if 30% are saved, either are good. It is only evil if God decides for all to be saved.

But what if God created the world only for the Virgin Mary, and no human besides her is saved? That is also good, I suppose.

>Only if you are completely tied down into the fallen material world and have willingly denied yourself all knowledge of truth.
I know it sounds like I'm repeating myself, but that doesn't follow. It's a complete non sequitur. Sadly, however, I've heard it often; if you deny something that is taken for granted (without actually being rigorously argued-for), you have "fallen into the material, fallen world of chaos and illogic." But who's to say you, fallen creature, are not in the same position? Who is to say that all of your dogmas and beliefs are not all the result of fallenness? I do not say this as truth, but as a suggestion. A curative for gnosticism.

>>18955460
>You cannot forge the experience of sin and the experience of being freed from it.
The experience of what you call sin is a psychological reality reinterpreted and framed in a diseased way by Christianity so as to appear as something else. Or it merely could be as such

Besides, these aren't the forgeries I was talking about. Any religion can free you from vague ideas such as "sin;" it is the historical aspect of Christianity that I was talking about. You know, the resurrection that all Christian faith hinges on and all.

>Because He told us. We have a personal connection with Him. This allows us to be free from onions-skepticism and doubting the existence of truth (which is essentially all of your post). You can come join us too to if you want to share in this joy.
Prove literally any of this directly. Not psychological self-trickery, no placebo, no indirect beating around the bush (I know I have a personal connection with Him because I believe in Him, but I have no actual evidence for any entity beyond this belief).

>>18955471
>It is based on my faith in the Holy Spirit to make truth known to His Church and to preserve it throughout time.
That is still a moral sentiment created by your life and the times in which you live; it doesn't matter by which moniker you call it.

>I don't care what this truth is compared to my useless secularist or temporal sentiments, I will still follow it.
Your faith is a useless and temporal sentiment, there are others who possess equal so-called faith that the church is not a structure, but the community of all Christians, or that Christianity is a farce. Rebranding belief as "faith from the Holy Spirit" doesn't mean anything further.

>>18955471
Besides, notice how this claim is identical to Universalism

>I just can't believe that the Holy Spirit would not deliver the truth to the Church, or that it would and the Church would immediately reject the Holy Spirit and fall into spiritual deception for millennia! I have "faith" that the Holy Spirit would preserve the Church.

>I just can't believe that God would allow 99% of the world to go to Hell, why did He even sacrifice Himself? Why did He create us, if only to be damned without a second chance? I have "faith" that God will preserve humanity and not cause them to perish.

>>18956139
>how this claim is identical to Universalism
How? One claims that all truths passed down are preserved from corruption. The other is imposing your own modern sentiment onto the Church which denies the doctrine you are trying to claim.

>>18956085
>my opinion is truth
Who is to say?

>>18950144
He's so catty and sassy in his prose. Is he a repressed homosexual?

>>18956168
Because both are motivated by the same incredulity at God allowing something atrocious to modern sentiments.

>One claims that all truths passed down are preserved from corruption
No, it is incredulity that God could possibly allow His only church on earth to fall into utter corruption and decay. A small thing considering that the "true church" (Orthodoxy) is only 5% of the global population, so I do not see why them also being a corrupt, misinformed church would not fall in line with this trend of narrowing the true path.

Unless you do not feel that God would be unjust for allowing the Orthodox church to be an edifice of deception, and rather just "have faith." I'd like to see what reason you have for holding this faith that is not unproveable (God is giving me faith, but I cannot demonstrate that to you, I can only attempt to point to it through indirect means, such as me believing in what the saints believe- but what if the saints are deceived?).

>>18956185
I don't know what you're quoting, but mostly what we have regarding the "heavenly realms" and finer points of reality is pure opinion or conjecture. If we can have Cartesian doubts about reality, imagine how much more about the invisible, distant, unnatural realm of the supernatural.

jesus "the eternally damned are are completely fucked"
a fat faggot "well, actually he meant they are only fucked until he decides they aren't"

>>18959646
he didnt say that

>>18951477
>He's an Orthodox, yes.
He was raised Anglican though?