What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[quatona]

And I think that Atheism might have some things in common with Buddhism in general, since God, as we understand him in the West, is not a part of Buddhism.

And to expand on that, even the bible - if read in an entirely metaphorical way - can be appreciated and agreed upon by an atheist.

Commonality is good, I'm for that. To tell you the truth, even though I wanted to bounce Rahner's concepts off the forum, the idea of the Anonymous Christian is more of an inside view, as a partial solution to the problem of hell in Christian theology.

Yes, that´s exactly what I meant when conceding that Rahner probably didn´t use it as an argument (e.g. for the existence of the Christian God).

It is not meant for the purpose of my telling you that you're an Anonymous Christian. So, I guess calling me an Anonymous Atheist would be fair play.

Fair enough. I suggest, though, we both abstain from it.

 

[Skavau]

I understand, but Rahner would say that, nevertheless, there is a transcendent level where you are experiencing God, even if you don't explicitly recognize or affirm it.

Who cares?

Or rather why should *I* care what Rahner thinks on this? If he can't demonstrate he's just ponitificating pointlessly.

He says the key to that experience is the daily conscious awareness of objects, events, etc., in our lives. I understand that, as an atheist, you are not inclined to accept this.

Correct.

But perhaps you may consider this at some point. I think Rahner would say that it is not always necessary for the atheist to explicitly acknowledge God.

So what's the issue then?

 

[steve_bakr]

Who cares?

Or rather why should *I* care what Rahner thinks on this? If he can't demonstrate he's just ponitificating pointlessly.

Correct.

So what's the issue then?

I was sharing an idea from Karl Rahner--20th century's greatest theologian--that we actually are transcendent beings, have a necessary relatedness to God, and experience God in the conscious awareness of our daily experience, even when we don't realize it.

This is a Christian Forum, after all. So, I am sure that--since you have sought to become a part of it--you realize that you may hear--or even want to hear--some ideas relevant to Christianity.

BTW, In all fairness, many Protestants will say that the greatest 20th century theologian was Karl Barth. And I'm sure Hans Kung may have his name in the hat as well.

 

[Gottservant]

The objectors in this thread, all have patently no clue what their philosophy of Hell is.

I can only conclude that they don't know how to respond to the subject.

 

[Skavau]

The objectors in this thread, all have patently no clue what their philosophy of Hell is.

I can only conclude that they don't know how to respond to the subject.

You're half right. The second sentence is true.

 

[Davian]

The objectors in this thread, all have patently no clue what their philosophy of Hell is.

That you do not like their answers is not a reflection of the validity of them.

I can only conclude that they don't know how to respond to the subject.

Perhaps you reached that conclusion prior to starting this thread.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The objectors in this thread, all have patently no clue what their philosophy of Hell is.

I can only conclude that they don't know how to respond to the subject.

I know what the philosophy of hell is.... It's a tool to keep people scared so they don't leave the church.


.... Next!

 

[Gottservant]

I find that unwarranted.

Philosophy scares no one.

Hell remains a mystery to the world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He's saying that Hell is a fiction designed to keep people frightened and obedient to a religion. As I see it, the concept of hell is a tool of politics, which if one examines history shouldn't be too surprising. Religion and politics have often intertwined to the point where they seem indistinguishable from each other. Just consider the Pharoahs (god-kings) of Egypt.

Hell is no mystery. It has no literal existence. It is a human fiction created and promoted for human purposes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

He's saying that Hell is a fiction designed to keep people frightened and obedient to a religion. As I see it, the concept of hell is a tool of politics, which if one examines history shouldn't be too surprising. Religion and politics have often intertwined to the point where they seem indistinguishable from each other. Just consider the Pharoahs (god-kings) of Egypt.

Hell is no mystery. It has no literal existence. It is a human fiction created and promoted for human purposes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Exactly

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hell is the tormented demon in the mirror of self awareness we must live with when we choose life destroying ways.

Our spirit is to know being, to know love and serve it, and to undermine being is to miss the mark.

Hell is the paradox of man as a being knowing Being that rejects itself, destroys itself, undermines itself and thus knows it would rather not be whilst it Is. Hell is the product of a no to a yes, a behavioural rejection of the affirmative "I am".

Yet fortunately just as Hell is a flight from being, Hell flees from itslef also just as the deviant self destroying hand avoids the fire, or at worst is annihilated by it.

Perhaps we all bear the scars of the notifying vacations in Hell, is this not lesson enough?

 

[steve_bakr]

Theologically, we might say that hell is a state that reflects the absence of God. Since God is love, we could say that it is the absence of love, ultimate aloneness.

It is the result of a decision at some point in life to live for self alone. One might use the analogy of a miser who cares for nothing save his money. Or the poor unfortunate addict who has reached the point where the only thing that matters is the drug.

So long as someone is capable of love, there is still hope for that person to escape the aloneness of hell. It is often that an infant or a child may bring one out of a state of self-centered existence.

In such a case, a man or a woman will sacrifice their own self-interest for an infant or a child. Some people would even lay their lives down for an infant or a chid, or possibly a spouse.

This is love at its best, for Jesus said their is no greater love than to lay one's life down for another. This love is the presence of God.

 

[Rajni]

Theologically, we might say that hell is a state that reflects the absence of God. Since God is love, we could say that it is the absence of love, ultimate aloneness.

The only problem I see with that is that (I believe) God is Omnipresent, so He's not absent from anywhere; He is everywhere, so separation from Him is impossible. It even says in Psalms that if one makes one's bed in hell, God is there too.

It is the result of a decision at some point in life to live for self alone. One might use the analogy of a miser who cares for nothing save his money. Or the poor unfortunate addict who has reached the point where the only thing that matters is the drug.

So long as someone is capable of love, there is still hope for that person to escape the aloneness of hell. It is often that an infant or a child may bring one out of a state of self-centered existence.

In such a case, a man or a woman will sacrifice their own self-interest for an infant or a child. Some people would even lay their lives down for an infant or a chid, or possibly a spouse.

This is love at its best, for Jesus said their is no greater love than to lay one's life down for another. This love is the presence of God.

Amen. The only thing I would add is that since God's love is the epitome of this kind of love, I have a hard time accepting that it could, at the same time, doom someone forever for being less than perfect in some way. Especially when God has it well within His power to repair whatever might be 'broken' in His product.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In such a case, a man or a woman will sacrifice their own self-interest for an infant or a child. Some people would even lay their lives down for an infant or a chid, or possibly a spouse.

This is love at its best, for Jesus said their is no greater love than to lay one's life down for another. This love is the presence of God.

Was there not greater love before the fall? Is the more perfect world, and therefore the one with less sin and greater goodness, one where we do not have to self sacrifice on the grounds that things are good enough as they stand?


Or is love's extent measured by the lengths it has to go to make amends?

 

[steve_bakr]

Was there not greater love before the fall? Is the more perfect world, and therefore the one with less sin and greater goodness, one where we do not have to self sacrifice on the grounds that things are good enough as they stand?

Or is love's extent measured by the lengths it has to go to make amends?

The love of God does not increase or decrease. The fall was due to putting self before God. We believe that Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation.

It seems to me that being in relationships with other people involves making certain sacrifices. At some point, we put the well being of the other before our own self-centered desires. Probably the greatest example of this is with infants and children, but also spouses and friends.

I don't think that these sacrifices necessarily involve making amends, but they are inherent in the characteristics of love.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The love of God does not increase or decrease. The fall was due to putting self before God. We believe that Christ, through his life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation.

So in other words, the fall happened before mankind knew what Good and Evil was, and therefore could not have known what they were doing was wrong. To redeem us, God sacrificed himself to himself to create a loophole around a rule that he invented.

Makes sense to me.....

 

[steve_bakr]

So in other words, the fall happened before mankind knew what Good and Evil was, and therefore could not have known what they were doing was wrong. To redeem us, God sacrificed himself to himself to create a loophole around a rule that he invented.

Makes sense to me.....

The characteristic of Original Sin is the hubris of placing oneself before the Infinite.

Even an atheist, at some point, realizes the smallness of his intellect in relation to the Infinite. This would be a religious moment. This is a transcendent experience of God, though not explicity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The characteristic of Original Sin is the hubris of placing oneself before the Infinite.

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as the "Infinite". There is only a finite universe. The entire universe is immense relative to us, just as we are immense relative to individual neutrinos.

I have no idea what you mean regarding realizing the smallness of one's intellect in relation to the Infinite. No infinite intelligence exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[steve_bakr]

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as the "Infinite". There is only a finite universe. The entire universe is immense relative to us, just as we are immense relative to individual neutrinos.

I have no idea what you mean regarding realizing the smallness of one's intellect in relation to the Infinite. No infinite intelligence exists.

eudaimonia,

Mark

On what background does that finite universe exist in? It is Infinite. Finite is defined in relation to the Infinite.

You may not be aware of an Infinite Intelligence as such, but you experience it in the conscious awareness of your daily experience, even though you are not explicitly aware of it.

You translate your explicit unawareness of God into the false conclusion that He Does not exist. The most you can really say is, "I don't know," or "I am not aware." But the truth is that the experience of the Infinite is always there.

 

[bricklayer]

To me, "hell" is not unlike darkness or cold.
Darkness is not, in and of itself, a thing; it is the absence of light.
Cold, as well, is the absence of heat.

"Hell", to me, is the absence of all the that is Good, all that is God.

I am left to believe that "hell" exists and that it actually exists. That is to say that it has material, spatial, temporal as well as metaphysical, spiritual and eternal being.

The only thing "hell" has in common with "heaven" is their actual existence.