Well, actually, since you and I share the same belief in this - i.e. that God hasn't created a place called "hell," but rather it is simply His love experienced upside down (torment) - then I can say that love wouldn't do that.
incorrect. we see love as torment even amongst regular humans.
And this is really the heart of the matter, isn't it? Besides all the speculations on this issue regarding the character of God, the nature of hell (fire literal or not) or any other thing, the real issue comes down to free-will theodicy and whether or not a soul has the ability to repent in the next life. It comes down to whether a soul is locked into sin forever with no ability to change, or if that soul still has potential for change.
except that you are the only one speculating, and trying to find a way to fit your speculations into Orthodoxy. the fact that 3 Ecumenical Councils say universalism is heresy, countless saints, hymns, prayers, and services, those who say hell is eternal are not the ones speculating.
When you are blind, you cannot see what you truly want or what you are. What you are saying is that once a person truly sees (in the presence of Christ) so that he realizes that all he has chased in this life is illusion, that the true desire he was looking for is standing right in front of him, that his sin has hurt himself and others, he will nonetheless not be allowed to repent. That his case is unsolvable by the Great Physician. I don't understand why. Is this the case that C.S. Lewis stated when he said "the doors of hell are locked from the inside"? That a soul could be so locked into itself that it would not be able to turn, even when all the blinders and obstructions are removed?
this either shows how badly you listen or how easily you forget stuff. no, no, no. it's the soul personally rejects Christ. it's not that the soul won't be allowed to repent, because at that moment if he did, Christ would accept him. it's that the soul chooses not to. that's not the same thing.
We are made for The Good. We are made for God, and our souls are truly desiring Him, even when they desire something that is an illusion of The Good. It is innate in all mankind. If that is the true state of the soul, that we were made for God, bear His image, and in the deepest part of our true selves, want Him alone (which is what we are created for), then how could a soul see that which it has desired all its life and turn from it?
pride, first and foremost. Satan rebelled and knew where that lead him, Adam and Eve did the same, the Israelites (even though they saw what God had done for them) made the golden calf, etc.
Nope. If even one is lost, then the Cross has failed in its objective, which was that all men be saved and rescued from the tyranny of death. And if this is an objective sucess, then you have to say that it was never the object of the Cross that all be saved and the Calvinists are correct.
nope. because all will be resurrected. so all will exit the grave, which was the objective of the Cross. plus, Christ says that Judas is lost, so if you have an issue with this, it's Him you need to take up with. it's not my fault you don't understand the point of the Cross from an Orthodox POV.
Being damned is not living. That is not life. That is death, and Christ conquered death once and for all time, unto the ages of ages. If death - as a state of separation from God - continues to exist for all time, then death has one. And I can hear your objection now "But they are not separated from God because God is everywhere." That's not the kind or manner of separation I am speaking of. We are made for union in love with God. We shall be ever drawn into His love, deeper and deeper, without ever exhausting it. Not experiencing this is separation from Him True life is Christ and true life is union with Him. Any state of existence in the next life, whether it be physically separation, mental separation, spiritual separation, anything which creates a distance from Him in which we are not experiencing Him fully - is death. Any experience of Him that is not joy, bliss, and peace is not life, it is death.
again, no. that whole point of hell is that the damned are given life. flooded with life, and that's what they don't want. they seek that which leads to death which they cannot have, and that is what causes the torment.
Again, you have to prove that a rational soul with a truly free will (that is, unencumbered by blindness, internal corruption of sin, or any other deceit) would choose against itself and pick torment over bliss. Only an insane person would make such a choice. I would have to be convinced that a soul seeing Christ in all His love and glory would rather choose suffering than to immediately repent in sorrow and submit to whatever punishment the Lord would give for its sins.
Satan, the demons, Adam and Eve, Judas...
I am blabberflastered at such an answer. If Christ dies for all, then all must be saved. If He died for all, then if any are not saved, then you really cannot say that He died for them. And then, why raise them, if such is true, knowing that they will only suffer forever. Better it would be for them to have never been created. In fact, better it would have been for the whole cosmos to have never been created. What then was the purpose of Creation - to create beings who would only suffer forever? All actions are taken to a foreseen end. All actions are part of a plan which has a goal - a telos. Was the plan then that the majority of created beings shall suffer forever with no possibility of remediation from that state? Because if the all-knowing God foreknew this and yet went ahead with this plan, then the only thing you can surmise from this is that it was His plan all along that the telos of Creation would be billions suffering torment forever.
again, this is a whole lot of your thoughts and very little about what we actually believe. for one, Christ said that it would have been better for Judas never to have been born. for two, and again, Christ saves everyone from what He came to save us from: death. the damned seek death and don't find it which is what causes the torment. and yes, the telos is Christ. if He is the telos, and He is a HE and not a WHAT, then you have two options: either you commune with Him or not.
Age long within the ages of ages. If eternity is ages of ages, then perhaps the writer was speaking of the length of the next age to come, with the understanding that all the ages are going to be eventually folded up into God as Christ surrenders His Kingdom to the Father and God becomes "all in all." Which leads to yet another question: how can God be "all in all" if not all want to be in Him? He can only be "all in some" and nothing to the rest who reject Him.
again, more of your speculations. if you are arguing a theological point, you really shouldn't say "perhaps the writer..." and no to your second point. God can certainly be all in all with any number of people who reject Him. the fact that they reject Him doesn't mean He isn't in them. that's not a good point.
I do listen. I do think about what you say. I find the arguments for a loving heavenly Father who would create, permit, or condone such suffering forever to be without merit. I find they are not in line with the definition we have of love, given to us by our Father who created languages and word to mean specific things. I find the excuses for an eternal hell which are made in free-will theodicy arguments, reduce God to a powerless Being watching helplessly as His children destroy themselves eternally, which is a kind of blasphemy of His power and glory to me. I kind of feel the same frustration.
no you don't. most of these points have already been addressed in earlier threads. you can say it's without merit, but that's because it seems all you read are universalists, or filter what you read through universalists. plus, whether you think it's without merit is irrelevant. 3 Ecumenical councils, countless Fathers, hymns, prayers, services, the icons, etc all disagree with you. the consensus, which is what Orthodoxy looks to, isn't on your side.
yes, God created languages. however, His teachings on love were not given with 21st Century American English understanding.
and He isn't powerless. you keep bringing up conclusions that we don't. Orthodoxy doesn't care how well she makes sense to you or me or anyone. what is true is true, and as the history of the Church has shown, on this issue, you are not on the side of the truth that has been revealed.
However, you are correct in one thing: I need to stop posting in this regard and go on with my life. My spiritual father has suggested that doing any form of apologia, even defending the good stuff which is truly Orthodoxy, is not good for me and that I should work on the Prayer of Quiet. While it is not a direct order, I need to obey him. Therefore, this is my last post on this thread or this subject. I think by now we both know where we stand and neither one of us is going to budge an inch.
that's fine and I hope you do, and may it be blessed. however, there is one difference between both of us not moving an inch. and that is that you aren't Orthodox, and yet you are speaking as an authority on what Orthodoxy says. I don't go into the Roman Catholic forum and tell them what is or is not correct about Roman Catholicism, and then when practically every Roman Catholic says I am wrong, just insist that I am correct because I found a Roman Catholic author who agrees with me.
I will continue to pray, read, and seek regarding this, but further Internet discussions have to cease. Thank you for your continued interactions with me.
A Blessed Lent to you and all here.
good, blessed Lent!
