/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23877851]

So let me know if I'm getting this right.
1.) Individual souls (including of plants etc.) 'descend' from Soul in a process similar to the emanation of the prior principles. It is necessary and, in a way, involuntary (because no one willingly chooses the bad), but also voluntary. Our souls in the intelligible world contract a desire to become particular and care for an individual and the desire is inevitable.
2.) On the way "down", we take on pneumatic bodies in the outer heavens. Daemons, too, have bodies like this. Then we take the rest of our body as a human, daemon, etc.
3.) Part of you remains unchanged in Intellect; similarly as you descend into bodies you still have these higher levels of soul connecting you to the first, they're just inactive.
4.) After death based on how you live, usually your 'pneumatic body' either goes under the earth to be punished in Hades, or if you live a good life you go to inside one of the heavenly bodies. It's possible to meet people you knew on earth here and to communicate without talking.
5.) After the period in 'heaven'/'hell' you're reincarnated based on the choices you made. Plotinus says not to be overly concerned with the suffering of others because they deserve it. (4.4)
6.) Soul keeps cycling until it eventually becomes a sage like Plotinus or Plato and returns to the intelligible world.
7.) You have a 'guardian daemon' which is simply the next highest level of soul to your own, the nearest inactive level.
8.) Zeus is the hypostasis Soul; Uranus is the One; Chronus is Intellect; Hestia/Demeter is Earth, Earth has sense-perception btw but the heavenly bodies don't; Aphrodite is the soul of the cosmos; all the heavenly bodies are gods.
9.) Magic and astrology are real because 'muh cosmic sympathy'.

Seems a bit schizo desu

[Anonymous No.23878145]

Bump, why can't we ever have a Plotinus thread??

[Anonymous No.23878152]

>>23877851
>>23878145
>he fell for the plotinus meme
Oh nononono you could've went to the church today and you would've wasted less time bud

[Anonymous No.23878158]

>>23878145
Well, what's you point? It's a bit schizo for a layman but not for the initiate

[Anonymous No.23878167]

>>23878158
Who initiated you, you larping fag, there's no one to initiate anyone since the neoplatoism line has been severed in the middle ages and all you have now is westoids larping as enlightened fags (You)

[Anonymous No.23878225]

>>23878167
you don't need to be initiated in one tradition to understand the correct metaphysics of another. maybe Neoplatonism is not for you, keep looking.

[Anonymous No.23878227]

>>23878167
>>23878158
>15 year olds who think Neoplatonism was a late antique version of the Golden Dawn

>>23878152
Someone who believes in an eternal hell has no business looking down their nose at someone like Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.23878232]

>>23878167
epic. come up with a better refutation than the corn syrup in your blood.

[Anonymous No.23878233]

THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
...
GOOD!

THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
...
GOOD!

THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
THE ONE IS
...
GOOD!

[Anonymous No.23878282]

There's a schizo element to Plotinus because he's trying to reinterpret all of these older stories and myths of Plato, sort of like how Church fathers have to find a way to read these strange/immoral verses in the OT. I think all you could say philosophically, without myths, by Plotinus' logic is that the soul is immortal and is reincarnated, but none of this stuff about astral bodies. Plotinus seems to assume that the soul after death would have to have some sort of body in order to go to Hades as a place and suffer physical pain. But why couldn't the soul exist where it was before but find it painful because of its bad disposition? Or why can't it be punished as it is without a body? I also don't think it's right to say Plotinus is counseling indifference to suffering in that passage because being good to others is an important part of virtue to begin with. He's saying not to be upset about it, not that you actually shouldn't bother to help people. In the Life Plotinus says that anyone who becomes a philosopher would lose all their goods by giving them away. Also are you sure Earth has sense-perception? I thought that was a conclusion he ends up rejecting.

The pagan stuff has no bearing. Plotinus' philosophy could stand on its own without it. It's interesting but not central to his philosophy, and it sounds schizo for the same reason most religions sound schizo (being based on archaic texts).

[Anonymous No.23878284]

>>23878225
>>23878227
>>23878232
Holy triggered autistic manchildren

[Anonymous No.23878376]

>>23878227
>Someone who believes in an eternal hell has no business looking down their nose at someone like Plotinus.
KEK it's always le problem of evil fags who have to go full schizo because they can't grasp theodicy

[Anonymous No.23878389]

>>23878376
you can't grasp the problem of evil

[Anonymous No.23878394]

>you can't grasp the problem of evil

[Anonymous No.23878395]

Outside of the existentialists, reading philosophy has helped me in zero positive manner.

[Anonymous No.23878397]

>>23878376
What do you mean you flaming tard? Plotinus writes extensively on the problem of evil. The issue is Christians thinking that a good God would incinerate you for eternity because you jacked off and died before you had a chance to go to confession. That, my friend, is schizo.

[Anonymous No.23878398]

>>23877851
>>23878152
>>23878167
>>23878232

Corn syrup fags can't have a proper discussion without breaking down emotionally and shitting up the board with negroish ad-hominem

[Anonymous No.23878400]

>>23878397
Christcucks are schizo anti-life pro-suffering golems, and their proof for it? jewish fairytales

[Anonymous No.23878402]

>>23878397
The issue is that you're pathetic

[Anonymous No.23878407]

>>23877851
>Look Plotinus, I already have a lifetime supply of mandrake roots, I don't need any horoscopes.
>Judging from the look of you all those crab ridden pubic trimmings didn't do anything for your hairline.
>In your essay on the beautiful you mention something about a neverending fountain which will produce streams and new offspring. Spare me the platonisms I already know you carried on about sight and hearing and all that. Were you able to use this arcane alchemical fart sniffing to find a remedy for the Norwood reaper?

[Anonymous No.23878415]

He's really quite down to earth compared to this niggie right here.

[Anonymous No.23878416]

Do you understand soul

[Anonymous No.23878448]

Aristotle: Light is the actuality of the transparent in air and is a medium for color
Plotinus: Nope, it's magic. Even if there was no air there you'd see if anything even better because it's all cosmic sympathy. You see because you're part of one cosmos, air has nothing to do with it.

Aristotle: The soul is the actuality of the living body.
Plotinus: Nope, it's magic. Other things pass away but this is an immortal being. Proof: mystical experience + Phaedo.

Aristotle: Fire burns because it is its nature to burn, further investigation could tell us more about the mechanism.
Plotinus: Nope, it's magic. The burning of the fire is an externalization of its ousia that reflects the externalization of the One itself in Intellect. Neither the burning nor any sensible aspect of the fire is the Fire Itself.

Plotinus is basically Aristotle on shrooms.

[Anonymous No.23878484]

>>23878402
The issue is that it doesn't make sense. A good God could punish but it would be purgative punishment that made them better, not abandoning them in a hell-realm. Do you have any responses that aren't ad homs? No, because there isn't one, unless you want to deny scripture and tradition and say people might not go there at all.

[Anonymous No.23878517]

>>23878484
The answer is free will, God can't force one to love, hell is the absence of God, etc. Eastern Orthodoxy has written plenty on it

[Anonymous No.23878533]

>>23878517
And down the rabbit-hole of absurdity we go. Why are you stuck in a state of not loving God after death? How could God totally abandon something in that way if God is the source and cause of everything? And despite your framing of Hell as a choice scripture regularly speaks of it as a place people are sent for punishment. It's pathetic how modern Christians will try to worm their way out of this dogma by saying "Hell is a choice, really you want to be there :)", or "It's not fire it's just absence of God :)", or "Maybe everyone ends up there after all! Only a nasty pharisee would consider the possibility of others in Hell :)"

Go on, make your next move.

[Anonymous No.23878556]

>>23878533
>Why are you stuck in a state of not loving God after death?
Same reason you don't love God before death
>How could God totally abandon something in that way if God is the source and cause of everything?
God didn't abandon anyone, humans did
> And despite your framing of Hell as a choice scripture regularly speaks of it as a place people are sent for punishment.
"place" requires space, but both time and space are different (if they exist at all) beyond this world
>modern Christians will try to worm their way out of this dogma by saying "Hell is a choice, really you want to be there :)"
What dogma? Which synod decided what hell is like? Also it's not modern christians, this started from Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine
>Go on, make your next move.
You're just ignorant about the tradition, there's not much to talk about

[Anonymous No.23878585]

>>23878556
Top kek, you're still not explaining why you would be stuck permanently hating God forever. You're just repeating yourself, babbling like a little baby.
>What dogma? Which synod decided what hell is like? Also it's not modern christians, this started from Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine
Yes but they didn't frame it the way modern Christians do.
>You're just ignorant about the tradition, there's not much to talk about
You're too retarded to follow an argument. You're too devoted to Christianity to see what's wrong with saying "after you die, if you did something bad before death and happened not to repent, you will permanently be in a state of hating God, or being burned by God's love because you're so hateful toward him, forever and ever, with no reprieve, and this is God's justice."

The fact that you can't perceive a problem here proves that you have brainwashed yourself. Eternal punishment is not just, at that point it would be vengeance, as Plato said, and God shouldn't be vengeful. If you say "it's not really a punishment per se it's your choice to hate God", this also makes no sense. People don't permanently hate God here, why would they after death? It's the same soul in either case.

[Anonymous No.23878606]

>>23878585
>Top kek, you're still not explaining why you would be stuck permanently hating God forever. You're just repeating yourself, babbling like a little baby.
I did you just didn't understand it lol
>Yes but they didn't frame it the way modern Christians do.
You wouldn't know since you never read either
>You're too retarded to follow an argument. You're too devoted to Christianity to see what's wrong with saying "after you die, if you did something bad before death and happened not to repent, you will permanently be in a state of hating God, or being burned by God's love because you're so hateful toward him, forever and ever, with no reprieve, and this is God's justice."
You get your understanding of Christianity from cartoons or from catholics
>The fact that you can't perceive a problem here proves that you have brainwashed yourself. Eternal punishment is not just, at that point it would be vengeance, as Plato said, and God shouldn't be vengeful. If you say "it's not really a punishment per se it's your choice to hate God", this also makes no sense. People don't permanently hate God here, why would they after death? It's the same soul in either case.
Blah blah you're just dumb and ignorant, your arguments are reddit tier and your understanding of Orthodoxy is absolutely zero so there's nothing to build upon.

[Anonymous No.23878623]

>>23878606
You've said nothing at all, once again. A typical orthodox, you think you're super learned but really you're just a boring dogmatist. Someone raises a reasonable objection to a Christian belief and your response is "what's the problem? Makes sense to me lol. You probably just haven't read as many books as I have honestly."

[Anonymous No.23878644]

>>23878623
I can't help someone who doesn't want to help himself, not even God can do it

[Anonymous No.23878656]

>>23878644
Well your responses are pathetic and unconvincing. "If you commit a sin and hate God before you die, you hate God forever, in the same way you hated him in life, only forever. If you don't understand it you just have no grasp of the wonders of based Orthodoxy."

BTW hard to understand how a sin like having a fight with your father or jacking off means that you actually hate God with an immortal, undying hatred. Also, Orthodox converts are always losers.

[Anonymous No.23878671]

>>23878656
>If you commit a sin
You keep insisting on this, which I assume it's from catholics, since no one in Orthodoxy talks about salvation like this.
>hate God before you die, you hate God forever, in the same way you hated him in life, only forever.
Well, it's more complicated. Orthodoxy has subjective judgement before final judgement, etc. You just don't understand anything lol I'm not going to teach you the ABC of religion
>
BTW hard to understand how a sin like having a fight with your father or jacking off means that you actually hate God with an immortal, undying hatred
Yeah it's hard to understand when you never even tried. You don't even any excuse, 20th century "neopatristic" writers wrote things such that even spiritually void westoids can understand something.
>Also, Orthodox converts are always losers.
No they're not, and I'm not a convert anyway

[Anonymous No.23878679]

>>23878671
>No they're not, and I'm not a convert anyway
Yes you are, you write like every other internet ortho convert I've ever encountered.
>Yeah it's hard to understand when you never even tried. You don't even any excuse, 20th century "neopatristic" writers wrote things such that even spiritually void westoids can understand something.
Ah yes, the old 'only le based orthodox are mysticks' meme. You are definitely a convert bro lmao.
>Well, it's more complicated. Orthodoxy has subjective judgement before final judgement, etc. You just don't understand anything lol I'm not going to teach you the ABC of religion
I guarantee you your 'solution' does not solve the problems I have raised. If you could solve them, you would have done so by now. Instead you just act like you have super sekrit wisdom from your Orthodoxy that no one else can ever understand.

Hell does not make sense. I know, deep down you probably know it, anyone who reads this exchange can see it. Good luck with your new religion buddy,

[Anonymous No.23878687]

>>23878679
>Yes you are, you write like every other internet ortho convert I've ever encountered.
Sounds like converts are doing well then, good for them
>Ah yes, the old 'only le based orthodox are mysticks' meme. You are definitely a convert bro lmao.
Kek is that the westoid cope now? Calling everyone converts?
>I guarantee you your 'solution' does not solve the problems I have raised. If you could solve them, you would have done so by now. Instead you just act like you have super sekrit wisdom from your Orthodoxy that no one else can ever understand.
Anyone who puts in the effort can understand it
>Hell does not make sense. I know, deep down you probably know it, anyone who reads this exchange can see it. Good luck with your new religion buddy,
I was baptized at birth, I'm from an Orthodox country, I natively speak Romanian where almost everyone is baptized Orthodox, but thanks buddy

[Anonymous No.23878690]

>>23878687
>I'm Romanian therefore I uninvitedly come into threads about authors I haven't read to shit on their ideas
makes sense

[Anonymous No.23878754]

>>23878679
You can read St. Maximus the Confessor if you care about knowing. It’s not like this is some unheard of objection you caught us in. But ultimately you’re not going to be convinced by logical arguments if you are in a state of hatred towards Orthodox.
>>23878687
>Anyone who puts in the effort can understand it
This.

[Anonymous No.23878936]

>>23878517
You can't just mention patristic literature and omit the fact that within the tradition you will find strong arguments in favor of universal salvation, which is an understanding of salvation and hell which actually provides solution to the problem of "eternal conscious torment" as addressed by this guy >>23878484
Also it is rather interesting that this guy >>23878754 mentions Maximus in response to the aforementioned guy whose primary objection to Christianity is the idea of eternal hell, meanwhile Maximus himself can be read and interpreted as a universalist.
Either way, what is ridiculous to me is this pointless bickering between a supposed "Orthodox" Christian and a supposed Platonist, when the two identities are really much closer than they are apart. You should be reconciling through your similarities rather than estranging through your differences.

[Anonymous No.23878966]

>>23878152
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
I am the church itself.

[Anonymous No.23878990]

>>23878394
ah, wojack posters, the self portrait of the modern day. The face of evil.

[Anonymous No.23879010]

>>23878966
Ezekiel 19-20: 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[Anonymous No.23879443]

Plotinus very clearly states your composite is not that important unless you're some excellent person like Plato, and even then it's not that excellent when compared to the one. Hence why he doesn't really give a shit about what happens to the composite after death and urges you to spend your life here neglecting material pursuits and instead contemplating the One with him and his neet buddies. It's only "schizophrenic" because you are reading a man trying to explain the world through the tradition of Platonism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism while you however know obvious things like Mars being a rock in a void and not a flying intellect causing war.

[Anonymous No.23879545]

>>23878517

if free will exists as jews claim:
it was created by YAHWEH to give a man a choice: either be YAHWEH's drone and not suffer, or do the opposite of what YAHWEH wants and suffer according to his plan, ie be his drone. thus free will has no freedom in it.

[Anonymous No.23879550]

>>23877851
>'descend' from Soul

Emanate. Not similar, the same. Armstrong's complete, but bad on specifically rendering passages as they relate to Emanation. QRD literally Hegel.

>>23878282
>There's a schizo element to Plotinus because he's trying to

Draw perfect correspondences to Egyptian metaphysics as understood with/by their pantheon(s) e.g. Heliopolitan Ennead... he was raised in Egypt afterall ... and Plato. There's nothing to mourn-- it's in the way of things under Divine Order/'reason'.

>>23878448
>Plotinus: Nope, it's magic. Other things pass away but this is an immortal being. Proof: mystical experience + Phaedo.

You are not that which dies, unless you remain ignorant.

[Anonymous No.23879688]

>>23878448
>Nope, it's magic.
Why is Plotinus like this?

[Anonymous No.23879707]

>>23878936
>can be read
Can be, or was read like that historically by other saints in the tradition?
>two identities are really much closer than they are apart
Really? How so?

[Anonymous No.23879743]

>>23878936
>when the two identities are really much closer than they are apart.
Lol platonists have nothing to do with Orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.23879756]

>>23879688
So Aristotle is your castrated transsexual sister dying from repeated rape after you abandon her?

Good work Battler.

[Anonymous No.23879770]

>>23878936
>Orthodox" Christian and a supposed Platonist, when the two identities are really much closer than they are apart.
Who comes up with this crap? It's certainly not the Orthodox who want nothing to do with Platonism. They're fundamentally different.

[Anonymous No.23879815]

>>23879756
>"ONE WAS JUST TOO FEW PRINCIPLES LMAO MAY UP IT TO THREE LATER"
Beato is Plotinus+Origen because of her emanationist triad and opposition to the material realm.
Battler is Aristotle because he battles with logic by reasoning from first principles.
I wonder who Bern and Lambda would be.

[Anonymous No.23880521]

>>23878936
There are far more differences in neoplatonic (essentially platonism) thinking and Organised religion specifically Orthodox Christianity regarding First Cause. In Neoplatonic thought there is 'Original Sin' or Prima Cause, there is emanationism. Monad and Nous (the conjugate pair) , a binary unit. That is one of the primary differences and their subsequent views on Hell. Hell cannot by definition be 'eternal suffering' nor is it a 'place'.

[Anonymous No.23881358]

>>23878644
Sounds like bum you call God isn't omnipotent then.

[Anonymous No.23881517]

>>23880521
Did you mean there is NO prima causa, Ken Wheeler parrot? You should know that emanationism is an allegory and not literally known as a sequence of events, as the one, spirit, soul, are all existing timelessly, but in the material realm, the sequence of events are irreversible and has consequences. There is no sentient creationism necessary for necessity to become the void for all things to be enmattered through.

[Anonymous No.23881637]

>>23877851
>(including of plants etc.)
You lost me here. You can't assert absence of will from absence of intellect, but you can't assert presence of soul from presence of will.

[Anonymous No.23883212]

>>23877851
>tldr
Guenon, but for earlier generations.

[Anonymous No.23883226]

>>23878448
>Plotinus be like: don't mind me, I'ma finna plagiarise Christianity real quick

[Anonymous No.23883240]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.23884608]

>>23879550
>Emanate. Not similar, the same
I agree that the 'descent' of the souls is an emanation. But Plotinus himself speaks of it as a descent, ascribes it to a sort of sin in the intelligible world, etc., so you can't fault me for using his own language lol.

One thing I messed up in OP - really the soul doesn't come into body, but soul creates body and body comes to be in soul. This is part of his argument that the soul is immortal, too - it's simultaneously one and everywhere in the body, just like an intelligible, and is a cause of its body under the Aristotelian principle that all things are for their end and the soul is the end of the body (another emanation), so it can't be merely an actuality of a certain sort of body, as Aristotle would hold, but it's ontologically on a different level from the inanimate.

Another correction - I don't think plants descend from Soul, really. Plants are created by the cosmic soul, and still on the other hand very bad people can be reborn as plants so presumably the souls of those plants come from Soul.

[Anonymous No.23884620]

>>23878936
Ah yes, the old "ancient Christians were universalists" meme. A handful of Church fathers held it, not a majority by any means, and the teaching was condemned in no uncertain terms at the 2nd Council of Constantinople. So it doesn't matter what Gregory of Nyssa or Maximus thought, let alone Origen. There are many pre-Nicene Church fathers with arguably incorrect or at least poorly formulated accounts of the Trinity, you'd hardly cite them in an argument on that point. Universalism is something modern people want to believe, so this myth has developed of Orthodoxy/Catholicism "really" being universalist, but it's 100% bunk. Similar to the myth that Platonism/Orthodoxy/Catholicism aren't anti-body at all but are really pro-body just because they aren't gnostics - modern people seeing what they want to see in the ancients.

[Anonymous No.23884621]

>>23880521
No shit Hell is not literally a physical place, but this is exactly the language that Christ uses when talking about it so I don't see how you can bitch on others for following him.

[Anonymous No.23885689]

>>23881517
My bad, there Is no first cause and who? And why would it be considered an allegory? The One's flight to the One, not in a physical sense sure but in a 'spiritual' matter than yes. I'm basing this off on the metaphysics of Light and illumination, via Walter Russel's explanation although I admit he does get some things wrong. But the extrinsic attribute of light (illumination) is a reference to the principle and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.23885698]

>>23884621
But even the idea of 'eternal conscious torment' is nonsensical, for even something like torment and suffering is temporal/ transient. It wouldn't make sense for it to be 'eternal'. The idea of salvation also isn't super accurate, unless you equate salvation as 'realization or recollection'. But I could be wrong or have the wrong impression, the way I see it, is that an All loving being (God) gives its participants free will to choose, sure, but the choice seems limited to either 'love me or face eternal damnation' doesn't seem like an exercise of free will, more like an ultimatum more than anything.

[Anonymous No.23885703]

>>23885698
And ultimately suffering is an illusion. (Not fake) but it cannot subsist in itself.

[Anonymous No.23886412]

>>23885698
>It wouldn't make sense for it to be 'eternal'.
Why not? Suffering is a reaction to God's presence according to the individual's mode of being/willing in rejection of God, salvation is experience of the same 'thing' but in someone who recapitulated the virtues and connected with Christ. The final judgement only seals what you have cultivated in this life.
>>23885703
Sin also doesn't subsist in itself or have existence, but it still has real consequences on how you perceive God.

[Anonymous No.23886834]

>>23886412
One can still suffer even if their mode of being/ will is the love of 'God' as there is no philosophical or theological system that can 'cure' the suffering one feels and is inflicted via the psycho-physical (body-mind complex if you will) but that is due to the nature of matter and what you possibly identify as your persona and ego. If it has a beginning in time then it must have an end in time and thus those two are destined for 'death' which is suffering.
Yes sin (distortion away from 'God's love) can have an effect on you and have real consequences, hence one needs to take responsibility for their choices (free will) but it's not punitive or a sense of 'punishment' or entrapment that I believe abrahmic religions emphasize way too often, it's about balancing and a lesson of sorts to align itself with God and the metaphysical laws. It's not necessarily about 'saving' yourself, but about remembering that which you truly are. Suffering can enhance and act as a catalyst to Love more, deepen compassion for other beings, and to truly realize that which you truly are. There is more I could go on about this but that is the essential of suffering. Truly, Truly it is an illusion, by illusion I don't mean it's not real or doesn't have an effect, it does, just it's not only a sign that one is straying away from God, it's also a tool to experience and to learn and grow, to love and be compassionate for others which ends up with you following 'God'. There is more but what do you think?

[Anonymous No.23886836]

>>23886834
Oh lord I said the same thing twice, how embarrasing

[Anonymous No.23886862]

>>23885689
The ascent is not the descent.

[Anonymous No.23886913]

>>23886834
In general I think your words can have an Orthodox interpretation and St. Maximus talks about similar things, but it's easy to take the parts about "remember what you truly are" as some sort of gnostic or kabbalistic nonsense about the "divine spark within". Human nature is good, but you cannot attain salvation just by means of your own human nature because of your fallen condition. Also God will cure physical suffering for the saints in the resurrection and already is doing so in the martyrs who voluntarily take on death like Christ did, the body isn't inherently evil or destined to end even though it began in time. All material creation will exist forever in the eschaton.

[Anonymous No.23887000]

>>23886862
?

[Anonymous No.23887014]

>>23886913
>because of fallen condition
> divine spark within as gnostic babbling
My brother in Christ. When Jesus said "The Kingdom of Heaven is within You" what did you think he meant? And that fallen condition is one the larger reasons why I tend to avoid much of gnostic thought. But yes, you are correct that St Maximus and other orthodox writing have said something similar

[Anonymous No.23887017]

>>23886913
Wait what? God will cure who now? And why?

[Anonymous No.23887066]

>>23887014
The wording just sounded gnostic to me, might be my misunderstanding. They love to emphasise knowledge of the true nature of humanity (whatever it means to them) over salvation as repentance and cooperation with God (both of which are prerequisites for that knowledge).
>>23887017
I mean the physical resurrection of our bodies and the new heaven and new earth.
"And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
- Revelation 21:4

[Anonymous No.23887159]

>>23887066
Yes, but I'm highlighting that what you are offering and what I am arguing are not mutually exclusive, yours is more focused on salvation and purification and I ask you what are you purifying? And what are you 'saving' or are expecting to be saved? And from what?

[Anonymous No.23887601]

>>23887159
>But even the idea of 'eternal conscious torment' is nonsensical, for even something like torment and suffering is temporal/ transient. It wouldn't make sense for it to be 'eternal'.
I was just objecting to you saying that it doesn't make sense for suffering to be eternal.

>And what are you 'saving'
Human nature.
>from what?
From death and separation from God.

[Anonymous No.23887805]

>>23887601
>Human nature.
NTA, but I thought human nature is bound to the flesh and therefore cannot itself be saved like our soul.

[Anonymous No.23887849]

>>23887805
Human nature (ousia) is just that which makes one human. It's natural for humans to always be enfleshed and it's unnatural to die and be a soul without a body but by Christ's resurrection this is healed.