Jump to content

BBBCanada

Member
  • Posts

    828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BBBCanada

  1. I'm gonna try to argue that, at least for me, it doesn't make sense that one is a "self" in hell via separation from God. God is the very grounding of the self in order to make any sense of the self. Thus, there is no negation of the self because self-reference can only occur in relation to the other ie. God. To be separated from God would be to essentially annihilate oneself. In other words, there is no "contentless eternal existence" for any human being who experiences "hell." A person cannot truly be "self-centered" without being "God-centered" because God is the ABSOLUTE CENTER AND GROUND OF THE SELF. Wow. That was weird putting it that way. LOL. Just a little busy right now so I try and get on this later. Opps...but then again...Psalms 139.

    Where shall I go from your Spirit?

    Or where shall I flee from your presence?

    If I ascend to heaven, you are there!

    If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

    If I take the wings of the morning

    and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

    even there your hand shall lead me,

    and your right hand shall hold me.

    If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,

    and the light about me be night,”

    even the darkness is not dark to you;

    the night is bright as the day,

    for darkness is as light with you.

  2. SDG said: Isn't the problem of hell merely a special case of theodicy? The ultimate case, in fact?

    And du Garbandier said: What I appreciate most about Keller's teaching on Hell is the emphasis on its self-chosen nature. As well as, “Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. "The love of God will be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves."

    And Augustine said: You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you

    Don't know if it is the ultimate case, but think of it. A person is in hell. Let’s say they chose it. Ultimately speaking. For whatever rationalization process or irrational reasons. At the same time, you have to say that God still sustains said person in such an existence. Even if you want to say “chooses to imprison himself” the “prison” is still sustained in existence by God.

    My point is this. The Augustinian quote tells us something about the ontological and dispositional nature of persons in existence (persons are never solidified unto evil). In other words, just because someone is in hell doesn’t mean that restlessness somehow is eviscerated because God’s love is not. Its infinite. In other words, I think God has given creatures the irrevocable power and potential to not only accept God’s love but to reciprocate love back to God. In short, it's IMPOSSIBLE to TOTALLY ignore God...to absolutely and irrevocably destroy the possibility of receiving God's love. So then the question becomes:

    Can a finite being (with finite strength of will unto defiance)...who has God Himself as the very ground of his deepest "self"...actively resist receiving the Infinite Love of God **every possible moment** for the rest of eternity? In other words, is it possible for a defiant finite being--no matter how strong--to OUTLAST the infinite loving will-to-patience of the Infinite God, without whom they cannot fully be "selves" at all?

    I’m gonna bet on God. :)

  3. Well, essentially I'm assuming that some sort of belief in hell or punishment is what the majority of the church held. According to Ellis the three dominant views were universalism (in some variation or another), ECT (Eternal Conscious and torment/suffering) and everlasting punishment as an effect i.e. extinction or annihilationism. I really don't get into scripturally based arguments because they don't seem to resolve the issue as a whole and one could go back and forth on it forever and a day. It seems that the real dilemmas may fall along more philosophical lines that need solving. That is, for me anyway, once the question of whether all will in fact be saved (not that I simply hope this to be the case) then I put my eggs in the universalism basket and its all down hill from there. In other words, case closed. :D

  4. I don't know if there is a redressing of traditional doctrine. It seems that there has always been a belief in hell but there has not always been consensus on both the nature of hell nor its duration. So I don't see it as redessing but addressing those central issues, and attempting to work out their coherence. Either way, those who disagree over these matters all agree that the Bible does speak of hell and as such cannot be dismissed.

  5. Hilarious. To this day, I still place the Bic Ball Point Pen between my thumb and index finger wagging it up and down so as to give the illusion that it is bending while simultaneously going crosseyed just looking at it. Obviously, I'm still intigued.

  6. Just finished watching this movie. Thought it was interesting how

    Gennaro tells Kenzie that he did the "right thing" in killing Corwin Earle, and "no man who kills a child has a right to live" but apparently he doesn't live up to par when he calls the police on Freeman. The movie doesn't tell us whether she knew or not that he was killed execution style. It simply moves from that one scene to the next in the hospital with her trying to convince him. Though one gets the feeling that it really wouldn't have mattered to her whether or not she would have known he was killed execution style, as long as the pedophile child killer is dead.

×
×
  • Create New...