What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Davian]

Of course it does. You have provided nothing that cannot be explained scientifically.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you believe that what you experience is God, so what you experience must be God. And not just any god, but your particular God.

As I said, do you have something more than circular reasoning?

I have seen that article before. I don't agree wth all of its reductionist proposals, but I will say a word about the God gene.

Thomas Aquinas describes a human being as the composite of body and soul. Should there be some physical counterpart to man's spirituality--far from disproving its existence--it would only serve to support the proposals of Aquinas about body and soul.

As a Christian, I believe that God's ultimate self-communication of His grace to man is found in Jesus Christ, and the most concrete symbol or sign of that is the Eucharist. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't communicate grace through other religions and religious symbols.

The Upanishads say, "I (Brahman) am the source of all religions and the author of all Scriptures." There is no limit to God's grace but, again, the ultimate self-communication of God is in Jesus Christ.

As I said, science is not equipped to make pronouncements about--or studies of, religion--It lacks the language and concepts to do so.

If you don't agree wth all of its "reductionist proposals", then falsify them. Quoting other people that are also using circular logic is of no significance.

Science is well equipped to study religion, as it applies to how our brains work.

Neurotheology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, attempts to explain religious experience and behaviour in neuroscientific terms.[2] It is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena.
Proponents of neurotheology say there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.[3] The field has formed the basis of several popular science books[4][5][6] and has been the subject of criticism in the scientific press."

Religion is the purview of theology. That is why we seem to speak different languages.

No, you are just getting into apologetics, and you will get this thread locked like Gottservant's other thread.

 

[steve_bakr]

If you don't agree wth all of its "reductionist proposals", then falsify them. Quoting other people that are also using circular logic is of no significance.

Science is well equipped to study religion, as it applies to how our brains work.

Neurotheology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, attempts to explain religious experience and behaviour in neuroscientific terms.[2] It is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena.
Proponents of neurotheology say there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.[3] The field has formed the basis of several popular science books[4][5][6] and has been the subject of criticism in the scientific press."

No, you are just getting into apologetics, and you will get this thread locked like Gottservant's other thread.

No, I don't think science is equipped for theology--as distinct from apologetics. It can study physical phenomena, but I already said that it would only confirm the proposals of Aquinas of how the human being is a composite of soul and body. There are naturally going to be physical elements to our spirituality. But this does not support atheism or challenge the validity of the religious life.

Science might be used to understand the neurological accompaniment of certain experiences, but using these studies as cover for atheism is reductionism. There are also many more elements to the religious life than certain experiences.

The transcendental experience of God that I have spoken of rests in our everyday conscious awareness in our usual encounters of concrete finite existence. Our conscious awareness of everyday experience is the experience of God and an offer of grace, which is always available. We can either accept or reject the genuine experience of God and his offer of grace.

 

[madaz]

Science might be used to understand the neurological accompaniment of certain experiences, but using these studies as cover for atheism is reductionism.

It is logically impossible to use these studies as a cover for atheism, would you care to explain?

 

[WonderBeat]

There are naturally going to be physical elements to our spirituality.

That sounds like a cop out to me. If you're going to posit a transcendental realm, why flippantly intermingle it with our crass notions of physicality? Either something is spiritual or it is not. Either something is indeed supernatural, or it may just as well be another play, merely, on the natural. Forcing the two into one mishmash and calling that "spirit" is basically saying "yeah, there is such a thing as a divine, spiritual realm, but we have to interpret it through our earthly senses." No wonder skeptics do not find such answers satisfying. You take one aspect here, another aspect there, and expect it to fall into one perfect melange of elements. This explains nothing.

 

[steve_bakr]

That sounds like a cop out to me. If you're going to posit a transcendental realm, why flippantly intermingle it with our crass notions of physicality? Either something is spiritual or it is not. Either something is indeed supernatural, or it may just as well be another play, merely, on the natural. Forcing the two into one mishmash and calling that "spirit" is basically saying "yeah, there is such a thing as a divine, spiritual realm, but we have to interpret it through our earthly senses." No wonder skeptics do not find such answers satisfying. You take one aspect here, another aspect there, and expect it to fall into one perfect melange of elements. This explains nothing.

I was following through with the thinking of Thomas Aquinas--who in turn reflects some of Aristotle's observations--that the human being is a composite of body and soul. That is not to say that the soul does not survive the death of the body, but they are indeed integrated in the human person.

To quote Edmund Hussey's book on the thought of Karl Rahner, "In the history of evolution, Rahner believes that matter has had a basic tendency to transcend into spirit. This evolutionary process reached its breakthrough in (the consciousness of) the human person. Evolution now continues through the tendency of the human spirit to transcend into an intimate closeness to the mystery of God."

Further, "In this final phase the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) appears as the definitive promise of the divinization of the world as a whole. (cf. Thielhard de Chardin)

And, "all things, heaven and earth, matter and spirit, are the creation of the one God."

"Therefore matter and spirit are not disparate realities which merely exist alongside each other. They are both integral parts of the one world."

 

[WonderBeat]

I was following through with the thinking of Thomas Aquinas--who in turn reflects some of Aristotle's observations--that the human being is a composite of body and soul. That is not to say that the soul does not survive the death of the body, but they are indeed integrated in the human person.

To quote Edmund Hussey's book on the thought of Karl Rahner, "In the history of evolution, Rahner believes that matter has had a basic tendency to transcend into spirit. This evolutionary process reached its breakthrough in (the consciousness of) the human person. Evolution now continues through the tendency of the human spirit to transcend into an intimate closeness to the mystery of God."

Further, "In this final phase the Incarnation (Jesus Christ) appears as the definitive promise of the divinization of the world as a whole. (cf. Thielhard de Chardin)

And, "all things, heaven and earth, matter and spirit, are the creation of the one God."

"Therefore matter and spirit are not disparate realities which merely exist alongside each other. They are both integral parts of the one world."

Speaking as a transcendalist: I used to be quite beholden to this view. That matter and spirit are in fact complimentary features in a world of holism. And in a way I still believe that - but more in the extreme sense of matter and spirit ultimately being one and the same in essential quality.

As for spiritual evolution, I have taken to the opposite view that matter is not innately progressive, but that it tends actually in the opposite direction, toward greater and greater concretization and density, and that we are actually declining from a pure spiritual position. Occasional respites to this decline and concomitant raises in consciousness are the exception and not the norm in my worldview.

 

[steve_bakr]

Speaking as a transcendalist: I used to be quite beholden to this view. That matter and spirit are in fact complimentary features in a world of holism. And in a way I still believe that - but more in the extreme sense of matter and spirit ultimately being one and the same in essential quality.

As for spiritual evolution, I have taken to the opposite view that matter is not innately progressive, but that it tends actually in the opposite direction, toward greater and greater concretization and density, and that we are actually declining from a pure spiritual position. Occasional respites to this decline and concomitant raises in consciousness are the exception and not the norm in my worldview.

I'm sorry you feel that way, because it seems to be quite a pessimistic worldview. Have you heard of the work of Tielhard de Chardin?

I used to lean more towards the view of spirit as opposed to matter. But then I realized that the spiritual life of the person often finds expression in concrete symbols--ie., the Eucharist for Catholics, etc.

At any rate, I believe firmly that our conscious awareness in our everyday lives--ie., of concrete, finite objects and events--contains the experience of the Infinite, as I have previously said.

Several of the atheists here have said there is no evidence of this. But this is a case where faith precedes the experience; faith precedes the theology. As Hussey explains, "Theology does not produce our faith, but rather reflects on what we have already accepted in faith."

 

[steve_bakr]

It is logically impossible to use these studies as a cover for atheism, would you care to explain?

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

I have elsewhere argued that Thomas Aquinas' explanation of man as a composite of body and soul is supported by these articles.

 

[madaz]

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

I have elsewhere argued that Thomas Aquinas' explanation of man as a composite of body and soul is supported by these articles.

What about other mammals? Do they have souls?

 

[Crandaddy]

What about other mammals? Do they have souls?

On an Aristotelian understanding, all organisms have souls, but only personal (i.e. rational) organisms have immortal souls.

 

[Crandaddy]

Aquinas was an Aristotelian, btw.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Aquinas was an Aristotelian, btw.

Well, sort of. Aquinas worked within the Aristotelian tradition, but he put a distinctly Christian spin on Aristotelian ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

Well, sort of. Aquinas worked within the Aristotelian tradition, but he put a distinctly Christian spin on Aristotelian ideas.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, Aquinas seemed to do his work in Summa Theologica within the conceptual framework of Aristotle, employing the vocabulary of Aristotle, and constantly making reference to and quoting Aristotle's work. But it is all employed, as you said, for a Christian purpose; it has been said that Aquinas baptised Aristotle.

But Aquinas quoted St. Augustine equally as much. The works of Augustine play a huge role in the thought of Aquinas.

Aquinas also draws immensely in Summa Theologica from the Church Fathers and others--Jerome, Ambrose, John of Damascene, Athanasias, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great--a veritable "who's who" of the great early Christian thinkers, saints, and theologians.

BTW, Regarding hell, I think it is possible that hell is a state of being rather than an actual place, reflecting the absence of grace. Jesus used constantly smoldering fires (gehenna) as a metaphor for the state of rejecting grace.

 

[Rajni]

I'm under the impression that my atheist friends--by linking to these types of articles--are trying to use them as cover for an atheistic position by attempting to show that religious experience is only a physical phenomenon.

I have elsewhere argued that Thomas Aquinas' explanation of man as a composite of body and soul is supported by these articles.

I think I see what you're saying here.

It's been my own experience that the physical (i.e., my physiological makeup) has influenced my approach to spirituality, or the 'flavor' my spirituality has for me.

It's probably like in any other area of life -- whatever biochemical cocktail one's physical body is producing at any given time, can and does influence one's outlook. This, in turn, can impact one's spiritual experience: For me, when my serotonin levels are higher, my interaction with God takes on a certain 'flavor'; when they're lower, it takes on a different 'flavor'.

This isn't to say that the spiritual realm that one is perceiving doesn't exist independent of one's biochemical activity, but while our spirit is housed in our "earth suits", the physiological activity within said "earth suit" affects the quality of the exchange between us and the spiritual realm, just as it does in our exchange with any other aspect of life.

I hope all that made sense, lol!

 

[steve_bakr]

I think I see what you're saying here.

It's been my own experience that the physical (i.e., my physiological makeup) has influenced my approach to spirituality, or the 'flavor' my spirituality has for me.

It's probably like in any other area of life -- whatever biochemical cocktail one's physical body is producing at any given time, can and does influence one's outlook. This, in turn, can impact one's spiritual experience: For me, when my serotonin levels are higher, my interaction with God takes on a certain 'flavor'; when they're lower, it takes on a different 'flavor'.

This isn't to say that the spiritual realm that one is perceiving doesn't exist independent of one's biochemical activity, but while our spirit is housed in our "earth suits", the physiological activity within said "earth suit" affects the quality of the exchange between us and the spiritual realm, just as it does in our exchange with any other aspect of life.

I hope all that made sense, lol!

It makes sense to me! Thanks.

 

[WonderBeat]

I'm sorry you feel that way, because it seems to be quite a pessimistic worldview.

Pessimistic, but no less true. We are currently in the beginning throes of the Kalyuga era, an age of fear, hypocrisy and deceit. And it is predicted to continue on for 427,000 more years. Although, there is predicted to be a respite beginning sometime soon which will last 10,000 years. All these things are confirmed in shastra (scripture) among other places.

Have you heard of the work of Tielhard de Chardin?

Yes, I recall once when I was a free thinker that I poured over the works of various liberal Christian theologians including Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Tielhard de Chardin to a lesser extent. I cannot say I understood his views with any thoroughness but I was very hopeful when it came to a progressive spiritualization of mankind. Perhaps something like that is already ascendant.

I used to lean more towards the view of spirit as opposed to matter. But then I realized that the spiritual life of the person often finds expression in concrete symbols--ie., the Eucharist for Catholics, etc.

I would say, speaking for my own tradition, that these "concrete symbols" (paraphernalia for worship, murtis of deities, and so on) are not in the least bit material. They only appear that way to our gross senses.

At any rate, I believe firmly that our conscious awareness in our everyday lives--ie., of concrete, finite objects and events--contains the experience of the Infinite, as I have previously said.

That is consonant with my own tradition in which there really is not anything finite in nature. Everything is infinite, even the smallest subatomic particle. That is perhaps not exactly what your position is, but I do agree that one can discover the universe while meditating on a droplet of water, so to speak.

Several of the atheists here have said there is no evidence of this. But this is a case where faith precedes the experience; faith precedes the theology. As Hussey explains, "Theology does not produce our faith, but rather reflects on what we have already accepted in faith."

For me, there are certain axiomatic truths I abide by, and see reality in relation to. This entire creation is Maya or the energy of the Supreme Lord Visnu. So truth has to be gotten on His own terms and by His own Mercy. Using our gross senses, which stem from a materially-contaminated mind and false ego, precipitates disaster epistemologically. But, that's just me.

 

[steve_bakr]

Pessimistic, but no less true. We are currently in the beginning throes of the Kalyuga era, an age of fear, hypocrisy and deceit. And it is predicted to continue on for 427,000 more years. Although, there is predicted to be a respite beginning sometime soon which will last 10,000 years. All these things are confirmed in shastra (scripture) among other places.

Yes, I recall once when I was a free thinker that I poured over the works of various liberal Christian theologians including Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and Tielhard de Chardin to a lesser extent. I cannot say I understood his views with any thoroughness but I was very hopeful when it came to a progressive spiritualization of mankind. Perhaps something like that is already ascendant.

I would say, speaking for my own tradition, that these "concrete symbols" (paraphernalia for worship, murtis of deities, and so on) are not in the least bit material. They only appear that way to our gross senses.

That is consonant with my own tradition in which there really is not anything finite in nature. Everything is infinite, even the smallest subatomic particle. That is perhaps not exactly what your position is, but I do agree that one can discover the universe while meditating on a droplet of water, so to speak.

For me, there are certain axiomatic truths I abide by, and see reality in relation to. This entire creation is Maya or the energy of the Supreme Lord Visnu. So truth has to be gotten on His own terms and by His own Mercy. Using our gross senses, which stem from a materially-contaminated mind and false ego, precipitates disaster epistemologically. But, that's just me.

Quite interesting. I have read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Upanishads, a wonderful book called "Hinduism and Christianity," and some of Bede Griffiths work, a Catholic priest and monk who lived in India for many years. Griffiths did a lot of syncretistic work with Hinduism and Christianity.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of God?

Our senses provide the windows, however small, of our apprehension of material reality. It seems that, if a body weren't necessary at this stage, we wouldn't have one, though.

 

[WonderBeat]

Quite interesting. I have read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Upanishads, a wonderful book called "Hinduism and Christianity," and some of Bede Griffiths work, a Catholic priest and monk who lived in India for many years. Griffiths did a lot of syncretistic work with Hinduism and Christianity.

I think syncretism has a definite limit when it comes to Hinduism and Christianity. A lot of people seem to think the two thought-systems can be perfectly compatible bedfellows, but I think this is dishonest, from both Eastern and Western points of view. That said, they do indeed share a lot in common.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was an incarnation of God?

Right now, the more I think about it, (and I have thought this over for a very long time) I believe the best answer for me would be, "I do not know."

He certainly was not a Purna Avatar, or full-fledged incarnation of God. That would be in the form of Rama, Krishna or one of the other Dasavatar (ten primary incarnations of God). The shastras do not talk about God in the form of Jesus, so at best he would be an Avesha avatar (one who comes on the scene more or less without the usual pomp and circumstance) on the same platform, possibly, as Shree Chaitanya who I believe is Krishna in the mood of Radharani (his consort - the two are "oned" or "joined" as a single person in that given incarnation which happened approximately 500 years ago in Bengal).

Our senses provide the windows, however small, of our apprehension of material reality. It seems that, if a body weren't necessary at this stage, we wouldn't have one, though.

As a matter of practical usage, the body is a valuable tool. And it does offer some relative knowledge of the world around us. So the body is necessary as a means for us to facilitate our karma and also as a vehicle for seva or service.

 

[steve_bakr]

I think syncretism has a definite limit when it comes to Hinduism and Christianity. A lot of people seem to think the two thought-systems can be perfectly compatible bedfellows, but I think this is dishonest, from both Eastern and Western points of view. That said, they do indeed share a lot in common.

Right now, the more I think about it, (and I have thought this over for a very long time) I believe the best answer for me would be, "I do not know."

He certainly was not a Purna Avatar, or full-fledged incarnation of God. That would be in the form of Rama, Krishna or one of the other Dasavatar (ten primary incarnations of God). The shastras do not talk about God in the form of Jesus, so at best he would be an Avesha avatar (one who comes on the scene more or less without the usual pomp and circumstance) on the same platform, possibly, as Shree Chaitanya who I believe is Krishna in the mood of Radharani (his consort - the two are "oned" or "joined" as a single person in that given incarnation which happened approximately 500 years ago in Bengal).

As a matter of practical usage, the body is a valuable tool. And it does offer some relative knowledge of the world around us. So the body is necessary as a means for us to facilitate our karma and also as a vehicle for seva or service.

Syncretism was my choice of words, so I don't know that Bede Griffiths would own it. What he did do was express the Christian message using Hindu terms and concepts.

 

[Illuminaughty]

When a human dies and the mind-stream generates hell ones finds oneself born in the hell realms. Negative emotions and actions fill the store house consciousness (Alayavijnana) with the seeds of evil that can ripen and grow in the next life. I think that would be my basic philosophy of hell.

Aālayavijñāna

The ālaya-vijñāna forms the "base-consciousness" (mūla-vijñāna) or "causal consciousness". According to the traditional interpretation, the other seven consciousnesses are "evolving" or "transforming" consciousnesses originating in this base-consciousness.

The store-house consciousness accumulates all potential energy for the mental (nama) and physical (rupa) manifestation of one's existence (namarupa). It is the storehouse-consciousness which induces transmigration or rebirth, causing the origination of a new existence.

Rebirth and purification

The store-house consciousness receives impressions from all functions of the other consciousnesses, and retains them as potential energy, bija or "seeds", for their further manifestations and activities. Since it serves as the container for all experiential impressions it is also called the "seed consciousness" (種子&#35672 or container consciousness.




Eight Consciousnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​