Good point. Seems a possible and plausible interpretation.
In Religious Education class last year we also heard the interpretation that God doesn't force his love on us humans and that those people who don't want (and thus reject) his love will stay separated from God with no means to ever bond with him - not because God doesn't want to but because these humans don't have any possibility to, because they don't know how to love.
I once had a philosophy teacher describe spiritual death as "meaninglessness, boredom and guilt." He was a true Platonic Christian. If consciousness continues after death, it is certainly hoped that we will not be stuck within the narrow confines of our earthly prism. The question I always ask myself is, "How can I change my heart?" I can not think myself into heaven, so to speak. In fact, in my anguish I often feel powerless to do anything at all. This must be what hell feels like.
First of all, your argument (which seeks to clarify the true nature of hell) takes the existence of Hell as a given. More specifically, the existence of the Christian Hell. This has a corollary that suggests that Christianity to some extent is actually true. Any rational individual that even implies such a thing, must first be compelled (in any explanation of what details the nature of this "truth" suggests) to explain why he (or she) himself (or herself) believes in the first place.
I of course, however, completely understand that the sole purpose of your video was the clarification of the true construction of Hell and not the validity of its existence. Unfortunately, any claims to specific knowledge of the metaphysical or the spiritual will automatically come under strict scrutiny from the truly rational mind saying "how do you know".
Secondly, your argument is intentionally misleading, intentionally contradictory, and (ultimately) inadvertently moot (outside a purported clarification of a metaphor taken literally while missing the sentiment it was designed to express).
It is misleading in its attempt to absolve the Christian God of the torment he inflicts, whether directly or via acquiescence (though he cannot by definition acquiesce), by erasing the Lake of Fire. You say that this is a metaphor to describe the intense pain that ensues from the separation from God. It is used to illustrate to the primitive mind of man the magnitude of such a separation. It is nothing more than a metaphor however and no such Lake or Hell fire actually exists.
The Bible itself is so vague as to allow this type of equivocation, obfuscation or (to be more objective) liberal interpretation. Taken as a given, this does not change the fact the pain equal to eternal Hell fire is indeed experienced by these unfortunate many.
It contradicts in the sense that you describe God as the definition of Love itself—love incarnate if you will:
This God by its very nature could never create a Hell. Instead, the Hell is created by man. He chooses to reject God and his ensuing separation from God (and this absolute love) results in his own personal Hell (as described in horrific Bible metaphors).
This idea is a contradiction in the sense that this loving God would allow such a state. It makes it no less cruel because actual spiritual fire and brimstone isn't used.
It is moot in that it is no more than a reclassification of what Hell is (I must add to that your challenge to it being eternal; but seeing as "it seems like an eternity", I'd say its equally sadistic whichever you choose). All the old rules still apply: Jesus is still the only path; failure to act results in this Hell; and so on
Finally, your argument seeks to blame Hell on man, while attempting to absolve God of the responsibility. This is a complete contradiction in logic, as I will explain.
The Christian God is omnipotent, omnipresent (please stop me if you have heard this before) and the creator of all that is. He is therefore incapable of experiencing surprise or hope. He cannot, by definition, test or wish.
One must then conclude that each and every individual created by God has an ultimate future absolutely known to God. In other words, God makes each person knowing exactly what choices that person will make and where those choices will lead that person. So for every person that is "separated" from God, God made that person (essentially) for that fate. When God made that person, there was no other result possible—at all.
Allow me to illustrate my conclusion with the one and only Christian reference (because it, and it and alone, is "the true and only word of God"): The Holy Bible
John Chapter 1 Verse 1 (King James Version)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And without him was not any thing made that was made? Rainbows and baby killers. Ice cream and Small pox. Gandhi and Hitler. All creations of God. Heaven and...yes...Hell. Making it a seemingly eternal state of unimaginable regret doesn't exclude it from the absolute list of God's creation. It doesn't exclude it from God's "perfect plan". Does it?
But that skips neatly around the core Christian assertion of the nature of God, which is the fundamental paradigm from which this little video springs.
If you're still up for chatting, let me attempt to state it's central argument more clearly, and then you can have a good hard whack at it if you so desire.
In essence, this video says: There is no difference in the way God will deal with you and I in eternity. Ultimately, there is no separation from God.
Your augment suggests that religion is pointless. None of the dogma matters. If God is love, and ultimately there is no separation from God, then there is no separation from his love. We are all guaranteed this love. (continued)
So what is the Bible for if this is the case? Oh wait, the bible is the reference you use to develop your argument (along with peripheral materials it seems). So I must assume you are a deist who uses the Bible and other such records of transcendental revelation as pieces of a window from which you discover a glimpse into the metaphysical—a sneak peak if you will. Yet, you appear (also) to present yourself as a Christian? Odd.
You'd be amazed how often I get this from both atheists and fundamentalists. But then, y'all are both working with a functionally identical mechanistic and empiricist textual paradigm. Ah well.
The Bible is an array of texts spanning thousands of years, which tell a sacred metanarrative in which Christians participate. My interaction with the text isn't epistemological in character...it's ontological.
Oh...and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I know how much you love hearing that.;)
"My interaction with the text isn't epistemological in character...it's ontological."
So why cant the same be said for the Koran? Or the Torah? Or Homer's Iliad? And so on. The ontological argument can be applied to any interpretation of a deity. Why the Christian God?
I would suggest your parents and your community. I would suggest that your basis toward Christianity is hopelessly provincial.
"Hopelessly provincial?" Me? My gracious! But at least we're down to two simultaneous threads!
Hmm. Mythopoetic though it may be, the Iliad does not lend itself to that type of engagement. As for the Koran, well, it depends what sort of Muslim you are. Wahabis and Sufis approach it quite differently, eh?
Torah, on the other hand, *is* part of my sacred text. At least it was the last time I checked. Wait...yup...still is.
The "Christian God?" Aren't I supposed to be inexcusably deist?
Man...this is like ping pong! Check my other reply!
And what does my millenia-old book of books lack, in your studied opinion? I mean, besides pictures of nekkid ladies. Although I heard of this one version of the Song of Songs...
Ah, but what is the nature of divine love, as classically understood in Christian theology? I know you were fading in and out there during the video, but the presumption from which I'm operating is that agape love (as we Christians understand it) involves self-sacrificial participation in the other. It's an existential opening, if you will, in which the boundaries between yourself, God's self, and the selves you've interacted with are annihilated.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14: 6
How did I misread this? There are in fact an infinite number of ways in which one might "cometh to the Father" I presume? And in fact, this is a poorly constructed metaphor in that we never "left the Father"?
You do misread it if you read only one verse. Johannine literature may appear simple in the Greek, but is an intentionally complex and interwoven symbolic framework that can't be legitimately parsed verse by verse. Keep reading, through John 14:14.
The only way to come to the Father is through existential union with the Father, a union that we Jesusy folk see embodied in our pal from Nazareth.
You're equivocating...that's cheating. So Jesus IS the only way? What is ontological about that? Ontology establishes the existence of a deity, not a virgin born Jew who does magic tricks. You are speaking of specifics here. That is inherently problematic and it contradicts everything you have said so far. "Lucy...you got some 'splaining to do"
Ontology is the philosophy of being...as opposed to ways of knowing, which is epistemology. Ontology doesn't establish the existence of a deity per se. Unless you buy St. Anselm's ontological proof, which would be odd for an atheist.
And how is it cheating? Seems consistent to me. I equivocate no more than the Beloved Disciple's account does, so I'm in good company.
I'm enjoying this speed chess thing...but must leave it till tomorrow. Being the pastor of my church, I've got a meetin'.
BelovedSpear you assert that each person's ultimate Hell or Heaven is predicated on his or her "works" or the life he or she leads in the "here and now". Christianity states that this is not so. It says that Jesus and Jesus alone is the way to salvation. All other roads lead to destruction. How do you resolve this contradiction? (Please avoid employment of equivocation, obfuscation or calculated political maneuvering in your reply; give it to me straight—as it were.)
Of course our lives in the "here and now" is central to salvation...did you have some other life in mind? You're not Shirley McClaine harassing me again, are you? I've got a restraining order.
Who do we Christians say Jesus was? He's not some demi-godling, spawned when Jehovah came down to get a little Judean nookie. He is God. In order to be "saved," we Christians seek to be conformed to God in the same way that Jesus was. We are, generally, pretty bad at it. We keep trying, though.
As for those who reject Jesus...well...what is the fate of those who reject the Son of Man? Can they be forgiven? It's right there in the Bible next to the Blasphemy Challenge verse, which I'm sure you can find easily.;)
What does Matthew 25 say is the standard for judgment of "all the nations?" In Paul's discourse on Israel in Romans 9-11, what does he say about the fate of all Jews? That's Romans 11:28-36, if you need a hint.
"The Parable of the Ten Virgins" is a sick and twisted story of extreme immorality, selfishness and cruelty. What was I to gain from it? This Easter egg hunt style of debate is tiresome. Why cant you simply be direct. I do not offer you errands to run for me like you are my page. Why then give me the favor?
You speak in riddles. That is indicative of a weak argument. It is a dated attempt in feigned superiority. Why play this game? Do you deem my intelligence meager enough for this ploy to be effective?
Now...is Jesus the only way or not? If you say he is, you are a hypocrite and a charlatan. If you say he isn't, you are a hypocrite and a charlatan. Your loose interpretation of scripture is dishonest. Either you make black and white absolute statements or you're a heretic. There is no middle ground. I will ask again, is Jesus the only way to salvation?
No, my friend, Romans is coherent, but only if you understand the way Greco-Roman rhetoric works. You've also read the wrong part of Matthew 25. We were talking about judgment, so I assumed you'd look at the "last judgment" part. Mea culpa. Riddles? Is that what they're calling subtlety nowadays? Argument? But I'm not arguing with you. Ploy? That assumes I harbor the desire to convert or "beat" you.
My only choices are 1)hypocrite/charlatan or 2)heretic, eh? Ummm... Door Number 2!
"My only choices are 1)hypocrite/charlatan or 2)heretic, eh? Ummm... Door Number 2!"
Beloved Spear, I find it hard to quit when I believe I am so close to making a point clear to another human being. I think, however, that you want me to quit. No...that was dishonest. I want you to want me to quit. I dont really need an excuse I guess. Well...its been fun not talking to you. I hope we can have a similar nonconversation in the future.
Uh oh! Exit Script Alert! Quit talking? But why? I know there are plenty of Christians out there who enjoy pitching hate at atheists and Muslims..and other Christians, frankly. I just can't see how that meshes with the living core of what we profess to believe.
Your point, as I understand it, is that Christianity's condemnation of all infidels to Hell is monstrous, evil, and inhuman. You view it as both false and a sign of the inherent evil of all religious systems. What have I missed?
If God is omniscient, one must also conclude that God is aware not just of all possible variances in human existence, but also of every possible choice and variant in the fabric of being, down to the subatomic level. As God's awareness has ontological power, all possible results must exist. It is far more logical to assert this than to presume deterministic temporal linearity.
"As God's awareness has ontological power, all possible results must exist."
Therefore God could be wrong?
" It is far more logical to assert this than to presume deterministic temporal linearity."
Therefore Bill can go to Hell in one timeline and heaven in another? Or more precisely, Bill will go to Heaven in an infinite number of timelines and also to Hell? This WILL happen (and in fact already has for infinity). There is no if. All that can occur, will. I have you right?
But what is "wrong," empirically speaking? I have a viable way of defining it. But I'm not sure you do. Incorrect, perhaps. But not "wrong."
Though a multiverse cosmology is a logical correlate of a simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent creator being, the infinite variations would have little meaningful impact on a particular reality. That you undoubtedly love your Jesus with all your heart in another timeline has no bearing whatsoever on this particular infinitesimal sliver of spacetime.
Ah, but that presumes that faith itself is something predicated on a series of logical proofs or empirical evidences. Faith can be empirically described, or justified rationally as a response to the inherent meaninglessness of being, but it cannot itself be derived from reason. It is inherently experiential.
"Ah, but that presumes that faith itself is something predicated on a series of logical proofs or empirical evidences."
I suppose it does presume that; but only to point out the inherent absurdity of the concept when measured against "logical proofs or empirical evidences ".
"Faith can be empirically described, or justified rationally as a response to the inherent meaninglessness of being..."
In other words, an individual can perceive or experience at random an infinite and varied array of revelations; none of which he or she can share or prove to anyone else.
These experiences could in fact be true revelations form or of the metaphysical realm—the transcendental if you will. They could, too, be no more than the arbitrary interpretation of arbitrary stimuli from both external (i.e. mushrooms, flashing lights, lone dove sitting on a bush) of internal stimuli (i.e. random firing across the synaptic gap). If it is the former, I am sure it is an experience indeed (the same im sure if the latter as a matter of fact).
Nevertheless, it holds no value in communication with rational evolved primates. It is therefore worth little to anyone not the person experiencing these revelations.
So reading the Bible, the Koran, or Homer's Iliad are a pointless act. The reading of these books involves (quite utterly) the process of reason. It is also pointless to listen to the words of prophets, priest, reverends, or spirit doctors. As one can gain nothing from their revelation. Which is an absolutely untransferable phenomenon (as you I and I clearly agree it most certainly is).
Therefore, I must conclude that all the "truth" in the Bible was independently revealed directly to you without you having to read it or hear it from any other person. No childhood (or manhood) indoctrination took place. This too is the case for any random person about the Globe (no matter their locale). If this was not your meaning, then you have much explaining to do.
As is this insanely cumbersome way of communicating. Here's a thought. You post one comment. Pick a thread. Any thread. Then I'll post a reply, to which you'll reply. It'll be more direct. It'll be more linear. It'll be more...rational. One other benefit of the 500 character limit: it prevents monologuing. And we evidently likes our monologuing, oh yes, my precious.
"You post one comment. Pick a thread. Any thread. Then I'll post a reply, to which you'll reply. It'll be more direct. It'll be more linear. It'll be more...rational."
K. I like you. The Lord of the Ring allusion was funny.
Intelligent Christians always give me an unsettled state of mind. The world would make more sense if they didnt exist. The fact remains, however, that you intelligent Christians out number all atheists. I hope this will change in the future. :(
"The world would make more sense if they didnt exist." Aye, but some things defy empirical explanation, eh? ;)
And really, if all Christians were intellectually honest and open-minded, I think you'd find us far less annoying. Shoot, I'd find us far less annoying.
I would like those 8 minutes and 43 seconds of my life back. Ok...I really wasn't paying full attention the whole time...but still. And yeah I know its 8 minutes and 52 seconds long. And no it wasn't worth the extra 9 seconds after the nearly 9 minute investment. Christian logic disgusts me sometimes. Ok...I'll admit...all the time.
Which is why, my friend, you don't understand it. Perhaps you should take two Ritalin and a Dramamine and try again. Rather than this effort-and-content-free snark, you might also want to consider putting some substance into your comments. This self-evident intellectual laziness makes you seem...well...less than rational.
Some time ago I tried to come to terms with this by taking into account of everything I could call to mind from the Scriptures and dwelling at the level of what they required rather than what they could be said to mean or what others (such as artist) had presented them as meaning.
The result was an essay I called "Hell: the Worm and the Fire".
I must confess as a non-Christian I usually find the "preachy" vids on youtube I come across to be very confronting and often offensive.
However I did enjoy this. You have very valid points, particularly about the growth of religion, or the "adult" or "child" like qualities (as you put it). I believe if Christianity as a whole decided to embrace these more evolved ideas then there wouldn't need to be as much bickering between people of different faiths.
...Yet my catholic parents also instilled a very open, healthy and existentialist mindset on me and my brother and sisters, so there isn't a reason really for me to cling to the catholic faith, and I guess in a bizaar way, I'm holding on out of solidarity to the rest of my family I guess. In a way. I mean....its not that I don't believe in God, I do. But I don't believe in hell, purgatory, etc. That's not how I live my life.
For existentialism to articulate itself in terms of ontological courage...meaning the courage to exist boldly, and not yield to nihilism or despair...faith is a necessary component. Not faith as blind adherence to doctrine, but faith as an orientation towards the unattainable absolute.
...and this is weird to say because MOST things in my life aren't reflective of catholic life, in fact I am the only child in my family never to be "confirmed".
I liked your video it made me think a bit about that. I was raised catholic and thats with the idea of purgatory and even for the crazier ones, you can say prayers a bunch of times to buy yourself years out of purgatory. Its not hard to see that this is a very oppressive faith, but when you've been raised on the one hand strictly in a religion it's hard to toss off the values you've taken on....
did you invent InfoJunkieHolland? you shoulda left her account up, made it this superhot dutch chick who is also super cool and uploads videos she makes with her friends of themselves skateboarding around the streets of amsterdam doing sweet tricks. she also has a couple meaningful blogs where she rambles about stuff and sounds both intelligent and intriguing. And maybe one slutty music video also.
No. I don't mind mocking folks in parodies, or creating self evident satire. But InfoJunkie was presumably real. Honestly, I don't know who they were. This medium doesn't exactly lend itself to deep and lasting relationships.
Hell is the absence of God, absoulte light replaced with absolute darkness. We only fool ourselves when we believe that God will allow people to spit in his eye then expect to spend Eternity in his goodness. Mercy endures forever so it isnt too late to accept his mercy
What you're talking about in this video sounds virtually identical to the ideas I found expressed in St. Isaac the Syrian, who speaks of both Heaven and Hell as the Fire of God's love, what makes one Heaven and the other Hell isn't destination, but disposition.
Question 1: Given that the answer you get about your "fate" as a loving person from atheism is "annihilation," I'm not sure the concept of hell is significantly crueler. Honestly, though, that's not my business to decide.
Question 2: Because we think we know. It'd be selfish not to share, now, wouldn't it?
A-2 - You (Christians) think you know. Exactly. THINK. it's my opinion that it's seriously arrogant to just LAY OUT your 'truth' and mislead people about the origins of the universe.
Is it less arrogant than vigorously assailing someone else's worldview based on a flawed preconception? Not all Christians reject the findings of modern astronomy and physics, my grumpy friend. In fact, there is little basis for that outside of the demands of fundamentalism, which isn't faith at all.
I know not all Christians reject the findings, predominantly made by atheists, but is it my place to gloat,
but i think it's weird that ANYONE can stand in front of a crowd and seriously tell those people he or she has the final answer. WHAT, i ask of you WHAT, kind of world would this be if we had the answer already? A really fucking boring world. Full of know-it-alls. And no one would know who to listen to. And it would get seriously awkward... lol
Those findings are not "predominantly made by atheists." Most sentient beings are perfectly capable of reconciling faith and science, and many scientists do. And gloating is...how to put this...not very indicative of one who is "living life in love." Odd, how atheists are so very good at talking about love, and yet often so very poor at expressing it.
It's worth talking about because purpose is far from boring. Without a "final answer," there is no ultimate meaning to your life.
We all get a little douche-y now and again, myself included. Don't worry about it. Your position is understandable...reliance on logic alone for meaning leads inevitably to nihilism.
Religious experience flows not from reason or fear, but from ecstasy. It can be logically comprehended, but is ultimately founded in experiences that shatter both the self and the presumptions of culture. Such experiences can only be constructively approached through metaphor and storytelling.
Yeah, I think it was Reza Aslan who pointed out that religion is the language of civilization.
Look, I don't mind that religion is the language of the civilizations, but I DO mind, however, that religion is not, even in this day and age, open to criticism or free inquiry. People who try it in Islam, for example are either apostates or liable to be killed. Christians excommunicated or shunned...
Here we agree, I think. Fundamentalists of every faith tradition try to quash the inherent ecstatic dynamism of faith. It threatens their power and the basis for their control of their followers. Real faith, on the other hand, is not threatened by analysis. In my tradition, the saying is "Semper reformanda," meaning "always reforming." Without openness, that progressive movement of faith is stifled.
it sounds like what you are suggesting in a nutshell is that hell is separation from god. to square this with justice as you stated early on in the video, could you replace the religious significance of love in christianity with the secular concept of freedom in shaping government, making and enforcing laws, etc..? in other words, could a christian view of justice on earth be the freedom to do what you will excepting that it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others to do what they will?
Over priced phlegm margaritas ... Awesome!
Ironmaw1776 2 years ago
Are you a part of Orthodoxy? Your eschatological theology is.
gCuezy 2 years ago
Good point. Seems a possible and plausible interpretation.
In Religious Education class last year we also heard the interpretation that God doesn't force his love on us humans and that those people who don't want (and thus reject) his love will stay separated from God with no means to ever bond with him - not because God doesn't want to but because these humans don't have any possibility to, because they don't know how to love.
(Basically very similar to what you said. ;) )
AuroraBorealis1990 3 years ago
I once had a philosophy teacher describe spiritual death as "meaninglessness, boredom and guilt." He was a true Platonic Christian. If consciousness continues after death, it is certainly hoped that we will not be stuck within the narrow confines of our earthly prism. The question I always ask myself is, "How can I change my heart?" I can not think myself into heaven, so to speak. In fact, in my anguish I often feel powerless to do anything at all. This must be what hell feels like.
axisares 3 years ago
So true.
godequaljesus 3 years ago
This is what the church taught before Thomas Aquinas.
antiderivativeman 3 years ago
First of all, your argument (which seeks to clarify the true nature of hell) takes the existence of Hell as a given. More specifically, the existence of the Christian Hell. This has a corollary that suggests that Christianity to some extent is actually true. Any rational individual that even implies such a thing, must first be compelled (in any explanation of what details the nature of this "truth" suggests) to explain why he (or she) himself (or herself) believes in the first place.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
I of course, however, completely understand that the sole purpose of your video was the clarification of the true construction of Hell and not the validity of its existence. Unfortunately, any claims to specific knowledge of the metaphysical or the spiritual will automatically come under strict scrutiny from the truly rational mind saying "how do you know".
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Secondly, your argument is intentionally misleading, intentionally contradictory, and (ultimately) inadvertently moot (outside a purported clarification of a metaphor taken literally while missing the sentiment it was designed to express).
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
It is misleading in its attempt to absolve the Christian God of the torment he inflicts, whether directly or via acquiescence (though he cannot by definition acquiesce), by erasing the Lake of Fire. You say that this is a metaphor to describe the intense pain that ensues from the separation from God. It is used to illustrate to the primitive mind of man the magnitude of such a separation. It is nothing more than a metaphor however and no such Lake or Hell fire actually exists.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
The Bible itself is so vague as to allow this type of equivocation, obfuscation or (to be more objective) liberal interpretation. Taken as a given, this does not change the fact the pain equal to eternal Hell fire is indeed experienced by these unfortunate many.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
It contradicts in the sense that you describe God as the definition of Love itself—love incarnate if you will:
This God by its very nature could never create a Hell. Instead, the Hell is created by man. He chooses to reject God and his ensuing separation from God (and this absolute love) results in his own personal Hell (as described in horrific Bible metaphors).
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
This idea is a contradiction in the sense that this loving God would allow such a state. It makes it no less cruel because actual spiritual fire and brimstone isn't used.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
It is moot in that it is no more than a reclassification of what Hell is (I must add to that your challenge to it being eternal; but seeing as "it seems like an eternity", I'd say its equally sadistic whichever you choose). All the old rules still apply: Jesus is still the only path; failure to act results in this Hell; and so on
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Finally, your argument seeks to blame Hell on man, while attempting to absolve God of the responsibility. This is a complete contradiction in logic, as I will explain.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
The Christian God is omnipotent, omnipresent (please stop me if you have heard this before) and the creator of all that is. He is therefore incapable of experiencing surprise or hope. He cannot, by definition, test or wish.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
One must then conclude that each and every individual created by God has an ultimate future absolutely known to God. In other words, God makes each person knowing exactly what choices that person will make and where those choices will lead that person. So for every person that is "separated" from God, God made that person (essentially) for that fate. When God made that person, there was no other result possible—at all.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Therefore, the pain caused by the separation from God was ultimately given by God himself.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Allow me to illustrate my conclusion with the one and only Christian reference (because it, and it and alone, is "the true and only word of God"): The Holy Bible
John Chapter 1 Verse 1 (King James Version)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
And without him was not any thing made that was made? Rainbows and baby killers. Ice cream and Small pox. Gandhi and Hitler. All creations of God. Heaven and...yes...Hell. Making it a seemingly eternal state of unimaginable regret doesn't exclude it from the absolute list of God's creation. It doesn't exclude it from God's "perfect plan". Does it?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
But that skips neatly around the core Christian assertion of the nature of God, which is the fundamental paradigm from which this little video springs.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
You misunderstand my core argument. There is no separation from God. God's love is inescapable.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"You misunderstand my core argument. There is no separation from God. God's love is inescapable."
Then all are a part of God's love and Hell does not exist. Therefore, no one has to be a Christian.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
If you're still up for chatting, let me attempt to state it's central argument more clearly, and then you can have a good hard whack at it if you so desire.
In essence, this video says: There is no difference in the way God will deal with you and I in eternity. Ultimately, there is no separation from God.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
(1st Part)
Your augment suggests that religion is pointless. None of the dogma matters. If God is love, and ultimately there is no separation from God, then there is no separation from his love. We are all guaranteed this love. (continued)
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
(2nd Part)
So what is the Bible for if this is the case? Oh wait, the bible is the reference you use to develop your argument (along with peripheral materials it seems). So I must assume you are a deist who uses the Bible and other such records of transcendental revelation as pieces of a window from which you discover a glimpse into the metaphysical—a sneak peak if you will. Yet, you appear (also) to present yourself as a Christian? Odd.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
You'd be amazed how often I get this from both atheists and fundamentalists. But then, y'all are both working with a functionally identical mechanistic and empiricist textual paradigm. Ah well.
The Bible is an array of texts spanning thousands of years, which tell a sacred metanarrative in which Christians participate. My interaction with the text isn't epistemological in character...it's ontological.
Oh...and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I know how much you love hearing that.;)
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"My interaction with the text isn't epistemological in character...it's ontological."
So why cant the same be said for the Koran? Or the Torah? Or Homer's Iliad? And so on. The ontological argument can be applied to any interpretation of a deity. Why the Christian God?
I would suggest your parents and your community. I would suggest that your basis toward Christianity is hopelessly provincial.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
*bias
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"Hopelessly provincial?" Me? My gracious! But at least we're down to two simultaneous threads!
Hmm. Mythopoetic though it may be, the Iliad does not lend itself to that type of engagement. As for the Koran, well, it depends what sort of Muslim you are. Wahabis and Sufis approach it quite differently, eh?
Torah, on the other hand, *is* part of my sacred text. At least it was the last time I checked. Wait...yup...still is.
The "Christian God?" Aren't I supposed to be inexcusably deist?
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"Torah, on the other hand, *is* part of my sacred text. At least it was the last time I checked. Wait...yup...still is."
Funny. But you know as well as I, that a book is defined not only by what it contains, but also by what it lacks.
Answer my question please: Is there a way to the Father by any other means than Jesus?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Man...this is like ping pong! Check my other reply!
And what does my millenia-old book of books lack, in your studied opinion? I mean, besides pictures of nekkid ladies. Although I heard of this one version of the Song of Songs...
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
Ah, but what is the nature of divine love, as classically understood in Christian theology? I know you were fading in and out there during the video, but the presumption from which I'm operating is that agape love (as we Christians understand it) involves self-sacrificial participation in the other. It's an existential opening, if you will, in which the boundaries between yourself, God's self, and the selves you've interacted with are annihilated.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14: 6
How did I misread this? There are in fact an infinite number of ways in which one might "cometh to the Father" I presume? And in fact, this is a poorly constructed metaphor in that we never "left the Father"?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
You do misread it if you read only one verse. Johannine literature may appear simple in the Greek, but is an intentionally complex and interwoven symbolic framework that can't be legitimately parsed verse by verse. Keep reading, through John 14:14.
The only way to come to the Father is through existential union with the Father, a union that we Jesusy folk see embodied in our pal from Nazareth.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"The only way to come to the Father is through existential union with the Father, a union that we Jesusy folk see embodied in our pal from Nazareth."
Though there is, you suggest, another way other than through Jesus? An infinite number, if I have you right?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Well...if I'm being authentically monotheistic here...how can there be more than one way?
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"...how can there be more than one way?"
You're equivocating...that's cheating. So Jesus IS the only way? What is ontological about that? Ontology establishes the existence of a deity, not a virgin born Jew who does magic tricks. You are speaking of specifics here. That is inherently problematic and it contradicts everything you have said so far. "Lucy...you got some 'splaining to do"
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Ontology is the philosophy of being...as opposed to ways of knowing, which is epistemology. Ontology doesn't establish the existence of a deity per se. Unless you buy St. Anselm's ontological proof, which would be odd for an atheist.
And how is it cheating? Seems consistent to me. I equivocate no more than the Beloved Disciple's account does, so I'm in good company.
I'm enjoying this speed chess thing...but must leave it till tomorrow. Being the pastor of my church, I've got a meetin'.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
BelovedSpear you assert that each person's ultimate Hell or Heaven is predicated on his or her "works" or the life he or she leads in the "here and now". Christianity states that this is not so. It says that Jesus and Jesus alone is the way to salvation. All other roads lead to destruction. How do you resolve this contradiction? (Please avoid employment of equivocation, obfuscation or calculated political maneuvering in your reply; give it to me straight—as it were.)
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Of course our lives in the "here and now" is central to salvation...did you have some other life in mind? You're not Shirley McClaine harassing me again, are you? I've got a restraining order.
Who do we Christians say Jesus was? He's not some demi-godling, spawned when Jehovah came down to get a little Judean nookie. He is God. In order to be "saved," we Christians seek to be conformed to God in the same way that Jesus was. We are, generally, pretty bad at it. We keep trying, though.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"we Christians seek to be conformed to God in the same way that Jesus was."
So anyone may gain "salvation". Even those who specifically reject the idea that Jesus was the Son of God?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
No, not anyone.
As for those who reject Jesus...well...what is the fate of those who reject the Son of Man? Can they be forgiven? It's right there in the Bible next to the Blasphemy Challenge verse, which I'm sure you can find easily.;)
What does Matthew 25 say is the standard for judgment of "all the nations?" In Paul's discourse on Israel in Romans 9-11, what does he say about the fate of all Jews? That's Romans 11:28-36, if you need a hint.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
Romans 11 is sheer incoherent nonsense
Romans 9 has this to say:
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
What? This is the most horribly capricious and obviously anthropomorphic deity the world has ever seen.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"The Parable of the Ten Virgins" is a sick and twisted story of extreme immorality, selfishness and cruelty. What was I to gain from it? This Easter egg hunt style of debate is tiresome. Why cant you simply be direct. I do not offer you errands to run for me like you are my page. Why then give me the favor?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
You speak in riddles. That is indicative of a weak argument. It is a dated attempt in feigned superiority. Why play this game? Do you deem my intelligence meager enough for this ploy to be effective?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Now...is Jesus the only way or not? If you say he is, you are a hypocrite and a charlatan. If you say he isn't, you are a hypocrite and a charlatan. Your loose interpretation of scripture is dishonest. Either you make black and white absolute statements or you're a heretic. There is no middle ground. I will ask again, is Jesus the only way to salvation?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
No, my friend, Romans is coherent, but only if you understand the way Greco-Roman rhetoric works. You've also read the wrong part of Matthew 25. We were talking about judgment, so I assumed you'd look at the "last judgment" part. Mea culpa. Riddles? Is that what they're calling subtlety nowadays? Argument? But I'm not arguing with you. Ploy? That assumes I harbor the desire to convert or "beat" you.
My only choices are 1)hypocrite/charlatan or 2)heretic, eh? Ummm... Door Number 2!
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"My only choices are 1)hypocrite/charlatan or 2)heretic, eh? Ummm... Door Number 2!"
Beloved Spear, I find it hard to quit when I believe I am so close to making a point clear to another human being. I think, however, that you want me to quit. No...that was dishonest. I want you to want me to quit. I dont really need an excuse I guess. Well...its been fun not talking to you. I hope we can have a similar nonconversation in the future.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Uh oh! Exit Script Alert! Quit talking? But why? I know there are plenty of Christians out there who enjoy pitching hate at atheists and Muslims..and other Christians, frankly. I just can't see how that meshes with the living core of what we profess to believe.
Your point, as I understand it, is that Christianity's condemnation of all infidels to Hell is monstrous, evil, and inhuman. You view it as both false and a sign of the inherent evil of all religious systems. What have I missed?
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
If God is omniscient, one must also conclude that God is aware not just of all possible variances in human existence, but also of every possible choice and variant in the fabric of being, down to the subatomic level. As God's awareness has ontological power, all possible results must exist. It is far more logical to assert this than to presume deterministic temporal linearity.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"As God's awareness has ontological power, all possible results must exist."
Therefore God could be wrong?
" It is far more logical to assert this than to presume deterministic temporal linearity."
Therefore Bill can go to Hell in one timeline and heaven in another? Or more precisely, Bill will go to Heaven in an infinite number of timelines and also to Hell? This WILL happen (and in fact already has for infinity). There is no if. All that can occur, will. I have you right?
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
But what is "wrong," empirically speaking? I have a viable way of defining it. But I'm not sure you do. Incorrect, perhaps. But not "wrong."
Though a multiverse cosmology is a logical correlate of a simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent creator being, the infinite variations would have little meaningful impact on a particular reality. That you undoubtedly love your Jesus with all your heart in another timeline has no bearing whatsoever on this particular infinitesimal sliver of spacetime.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
You forgot "omniscient."
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
Alrighty. So we can agree that language used to describe "Hell" is metaphoric or archetypal. No lake of fire. Good!
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
How? In what way? Well...we'll get there, I'm sure.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
Ah, but that presumes that faith itself is something predicated on a series of logical proofs or empirical evidences. Faith can be empirically described, or justified rationally as a response to the inherent meaninglessness of being, but it cannot itself be derived from reason. It is inherently experiential.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"Ah, but that presumes that faith itself is something predicated on a series of logical proofs or empirical evidences."
I suppose it does presume that; but only to point out the inherent absurdity of the concept when measured against "logical proofs or empirical evidences ".
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"Faith can be empirically described, or justified rationally as a response to the inherent meaninglessness of being..."
In other words, an individual can perceive or experience at random an infinite and varied array of revelations; none of which he or she can share or prove to anyone else.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
These experiences could in fact be true revelations form or of the metaphysical realm—the transcendental if you will. They could, too, be no more than the arbitrary interpretation of arbitrary stimuli from both external (i.e. mushrooms, flashing lights, lone dove sitting on a bush) of internal stimuli (i.e. random firing across the synaptic gap). If it is the former, I am sure it is an experience indeed (the same im sure if the latter as a matter of fact).
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Nevertheless, it holds no value in communication with rational evolved primates. It is therefore worth little to anyone not the person experiencing these revelations.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"but it cannot itself be derived from reason."
So reading the Bible, the Koran, or Homer's Iliad are a pointless act. The reading of these books involves (quite utterly) the process of reason. It is also pointless to listen to the words of prophets, priest, reverends, or spirit doctors. As one can gain nothing from their revelation. Which is an absolutely untransferable phenomenon (as you I and I clearly agree it most certainly is).
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Therefore, I must conclude that all the "truth" in the Bible was independently revealed directly to you without you having to read it or hear it from any other person. No childhood (or manhood) indoctrination took place. This too is the case for any random person about the Globe (no matter their locale). If this was not your meaning, then you have much explaining to do.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
" It is inherently experiential."
That is. That...it is.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
As is this insanely cumbersome way of communicating. Here's a thought. You post one comment. Pick a thread. Any thread. Then I'll post a reply, to which you'll reply. It'll be more direct. It'll be more linear. It'll be more...rational. One other benefit of the 500 character limit: it prevents monologuing. And we evidently likes our monologuing, oh yes, my precious.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"You post one comment. Pick a thread. Any thread. Then I'll post a reply, to which you'll reply. It'll be more direct. It'll be more linear. It'll be more...rational."
K. I like you. The Lord of the Ring allusion was funny.
Intelligent Christians always give me an unsettled state of mind. The world would make more sense if they didnt exist. The fact remains, however, that you intelligent Christians out number all atheists. I hope this will change in the future. :(
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
"The world would make more sense if they didnt exist." Aye, but some things defy empirical explanation, eh? ;)
And really, if all Christians were intellectually honest and open-minded, I think you'd find us far less annoying. Shoot, I'd find us far less annoying.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
I would like those 8 minutes and 43 seconds of my life back. Ok...I really wasn't paying full attention the whole time...but still. And yeah I know its 8 minutes and 52 seconds long. And no it wasn't worth the extra 9 seconds after the nearly 9 minute investment. Christian logic disgusts me sometimes. Ok...I'll admit...all the time.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
Which is why, my friend, you don't understand it. Perhaps you should take two Ritalin and a Dramamine and try again. Rather than this effort-and-content-free snark, you might also want to consider putting some substance into your comments. This self-evident intellectual laziness makes you seem...well...less than rational.
BelovedSpear 3 years ago
"Which is why, my friend, you don't understand it."
Oh, but I do.
"...you might also want to consider putting some substance into your comments."
You are correct
"This self-evident intellectual laziness makes you seem...well...less than rational."
I completely see how this can indeed be the case. No argument from me on that point.
Allow me then, to take another stab it. I will do so in 3 points:
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
nice man that Squirrel nut zipper song was a perfect intro.
ortega48 4 years ago
Some time ago I tried to come to terms with this by taking into account of everything I could call to mind from the Scriptures and dwelling at the level of what they required rather than what they could be said to mean or what others (such as artist) had presented them as meaning.
The result was an essay I called "Hell: the Worm and the Fire".
A really cheery sounding title, isn't it?
Rurudyne 4 years ago
I must confess as a non-Christian I usually find the "preachy" vids on youtube I come across to be very confronting and often offensive.
However I did enjoy this. You have very valid points, particularly about the growth of religion, or the "adult" or "child" like qualities (as you put it). I believe if Christianity as a whole decided to embrace these more evolved ideas then there wouldn't need to be as much bickering between people of different faiths.
5 stars
siamesemojo 4 years ago
...Yet my catholic parents also instilled a very open, healthy and existentialist mindset on me and my brother and sisters, so there isn't a reason really for me to cling to the catholic faith, and I guess in a bizaar way, I'm holding on out of solidarity to the rest of my family I guess. In a way. I mean....its not that I don't believe in God, I do. But I don't believe in hell, purgatory, etc. That's not how I live my life.
swissmaryann 4 years ago
For existentialism to articulate itself in terms of ontological courage...meaning the courage to exist boldly, and not yield to nihilism or despair...faith is a necessary component. Not faith as blind adherence to doctrine, but faith as an orientation towards the unattainable absolute.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
yeah I totally hear that. Thats why I believe in God. But I think my faith is love.
Which as you decided earlier, is the same thing; God is Love.
So it all works out and I try to be good all the time.
swissmaryann 4 years ago
...and this is weird to say because MOST things in my life aren't reflective of catholic life, in fact I am the only child in my family never to be "confirmed".
swissmaryann 4 years ago
I liked your video it made me think a bit about that. I was raised catholic and thats with the idea of purgatory and even for the crazier ones, you can say prayers a bunch of times to buy yourself years out of purgatory. Its not hard to see that this is a very oppressive faith, but when you've been raised on the one hand strictly in a religion it's hard to toss off the values you've taken on....
swissmaryann 4 years ago
did you invent InfoJunkieHolland? you shoulda left her account up, made it this superhot dutch chick who is also super cool and uploads videos she makes with her friends of themselves skateboarding around the streets of amsterdam doing sweet tricks. she also has a couple meaningful blogs where she rambles about stuff and sounds both intelligent and intriguing. And maybe one slutty music video also.
swissmaryann 4 years ago
No. I don't mind mocking folks in parodies, or creating self evident satire. But InfoJunkie was presumably real. Honestly, I don't know who they were. This medium doesn't exactly lend itself to deep and lasting relationships.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
You sound like Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' :D
EMDW 4 years ago
Hell is the absence of God, absoulte light replaced with absolute darkness. We only fool ourselves when we believe that God will allow people to spit in his eye then expect to spend Eternity in his goodness. Mercy endures forever so it isnt too late to accept his mercy
mdsstrangebrue 4 years ago
What you're talking about in this video sounds virtually identical to the ideas I found expressed in St. Isaac the Syrian, who speaks of both Heaven and Hell as the Fire of God's love, what makes one Heaven and the other Hell isn't destination, but disposition.
At any rate, good job and Godspeed.
jbstuff 4 years ago
Thanks! I'd not read any of St. Isaac, but will add him to my "must explore" list.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
Satan and Saddam FTW! ^_^
AndromedaMariaCarmen 4 years ago
and if i don't believe in god and live a loving life?
what's my "fate"
no. better question... why would anyone be so arrogant as to claim to have the way to ultimate truth?
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
Question 1: Given that the answer you get about your "fate" as a loving person from atheism is "annihilation," I'm not sure the concept of hell is significantly crueler. Honestly, though, that's not my business to decide.
Question 2: Because we think we know. It'd be selfish not to share, now, wouldn't it?
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
A-1 - yeah. not ANYONES business.
A-2 - You (Christians) think you know. Exactly. THINK. it's my opinion that it's seriously arrogant to just LAY OUT your 'truth' and mislead people about the origins of the universe.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
Is it less arrogant than vigorously assailing someone else's worldview based on a flawed preconception? Not all Christians reject the findings of modern astronomy and physics, my grumpy friend. In fact, there is little basis for that outside of the demands of fundamentalism, which isn't faith at all.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
I know not all Christians reject the findings, predominantly made by atheists, but is it my place to gloat,
but i think it's weird that ANYONE can stand in front of a crowd and seriously tell those people he or she has the final answer. WHAT, i ask of you WHAT, kind of world would this be if we had the answer already? A really fucking boring world. Full of know-it-alls. And no one would know who to listen to. And it would get seriously awkward... lol
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
Those findings are not "predominantly made by atheists." Most sentient beings are perfectly capable of reconciling faith and science, and many scientists do. And gloating is...how to put this...not very indicative of one who is "living life in love." Odd, how atheists are so very good at talking about love, and yet often so very poor at expressing it.
It's worth talking about because purpose is far from boring. Without a "final answer," there is no ultimate meaning to your life.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
it's not my intention to sound like a douchebag. sorry if i did.
"without a final answer, there is no ultimate meaning to life" yes. NO ultimate meaning.
i think most religious experience flows from fear of death and the damnation you speak of.
death is death. done is done. this may seem nihilistic to you, but it is, according to me, the most logical standpoint.
i'm glad to see, as i interpret your vid, that you perceive your faith more metaphorically than literal.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
We all get a little douche-y now and again, myself included. Don't worry about it. Your position is understandable...reliance on logic alone for meaning leads inevitably to nihilism.
Religious experience flows not from reason or fear, but from ecstasy. It can be logically comprehended, but is ultimately founded in experiences that shatter both the self and the presumptions of culture. Such experiences can only be constructively approached through metaphor and storytelling.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
Yeah, I think it was Reza Aslan who pointed out that religion is the language of civilization.
Look, I don't mind that religion is the language of the civilizations, but I DO mind, however, that religion is not, even in this day and age, open to criticism or free inquiry. People who try it in Islam, for example are either apostates or liable to be killed. Christians excommunicated or shunned...
A sad state of affairs, truly...
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
Here we agree, I think. Fundamentalists of every faith tradition try to quash the inherent ecstatic dynamism of faith. It threatens their power and the basis for their control of their followers. Real faith, on the other hand, is not threatened by analysis. In my tradition, the saying is "Semper reformanda," meaning "always reforming." Without openness, that progressive movement of faith is stifled.
BelovedSpear 4 years ago
Semper reformanda. I like that.
Thanks for reinforcing my belief that not all is lost with religion.
legalize it.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
great video
Dalbert342 4 years ago
Thank You for this.
BreakingButterflies 4 years ago
it sounds like what you are suggesting in a nutshell is that hell is separation from god. to square this with justice as you stated early on in the video, could you replace the religious significance of love in christianity with the secular concept of freedom in shaping government, making and enforcing laws, etc..? in other words, could a christian view of justice on earth be the freedom to do what you will excepting that it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others to do what they will?
toditron 4 years ago
heh heh heh- South Park.
AndromedaMariaCarmen 4 years ago