The Perennial Philosophy

[Tadashi]

Hi Thomas,

(sorry, I don't have time to format quotes properly... so, I'm in black & you're in blue.)

You've given me a year's worth of thinking/studying materials with your several posts in this thread, I'm still trying to digest them...

I'd like to focus on one or two subjects at a time, and first, I'll chose the subject of 'hell' because this is where my beliefs are completely incompatible with Christianity.

This is what you said in one of your previous posts...

I find many of the ideas implicit in the common doctrine of reincarnation as very bleak, very pessimistic, almost hopeless ... an infinite number of lives walking round in circles ... no mercy, no compassion ...

I also noticed that you've started a new thread, What's so good about reincarnation?

I'm sorry if you're gonna put it like that, I can also ask you, What's so good about eternal hell?

And you said,

But the question of reincarnation has been answered as I posited it: Contemporary western notions are somewhat romantic, soft and profoundly flawed. The process is far more pessimistic than 'they' would have you believe ...

My reason for believing in reincarnation is not that I think it's romantic, but because it 'makes sense' (to me), whereas eternal hell doesn't. One Buddhist told me when I was in Japan that he views this world as something equivalent to hell where tremendous amount of suffering is supposed to happen one after another. And he's not entirely wrong on this, look around what's happening in the world, look at our history.

Whether he's right or not, I'm inclined to fully entertain this view. So, from this aspect, you're right, the idea of continuing to come back to earth(=hell) is bleak, pessimistic, almost hopeless ...

But, are you gonna argue that eternal hell is any better? Isn't it actually worse? The Christian concept of hell is not 'almost' hopeless, IT IS HOPELESS. I don't know how an all-loving and almighty God would create such a place where some(or many?) of His children can never come back from.

But I may not be fully understanding your perception of hell. You also said,

I am with the mystic Julian of Norwich, she had a vision of hell, and it was empty. There are also other Christian writings that suggest that is the case.
If you want me to discuss why I think hell is a metaphysical necessity, but that it's empty, I'll be glad to.

What did you mean by "hell is empty"? If it's empty, there's no pain or suffering for the condemned souls that are sent there? But the condition is still eternal, right? You'll eternally be separated from God with no chance of ever coming back to Him, right? If so then whether it's empty or not, there's no mercy, no compassion...

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Thomas,

I also wanted to talk about how and why "reason" is important to me...
(again, I'm in black & you're in blue.)

Well, yes and no. I could argue that my powers of reasoning led me away from the truth in the first place. I’d have done better to stay and dig deeper, rather than go looking elsewhere. That’s the received wisdom of the Traditions.

I get that's your conclusion now. But do you think you've been able to come to that realization, if you had stayed without exploring other places? Maybe, maybe not... Like The Blue Bird, they were able to realize the bird was where they originally were, only because they went outside looking for it.

In my experience, few people exercise ‘reason’ as a discipline. They confuse ‘reason’ and ‘opinion’. And too often ‘reasoning’ is quite shallow, serving the ego’s agenda.

I know. Not everyone has a highly tuned, disciplined reasoning skill (and I may be one of those with a shallow reasoning skill at this point). No one is born with a deep reasoning skill, but only with the potential for developing it. I believe we can only develop it by constantly excising/practicing "reason" the best way we know how at the moment. We just have to keep polishing it with 'trials and errors'. The humans' potential for ability to reason is God-given. Relinquishing it is rejecting God's gift to us.

They justify themselves by criticising me or other Christians rather than actually argue the point I am making. As if a ‘bad Catholic’ is proof of anything.

Does this 'they' include me? If so, I'd like to say that I have not criticized you, or at least I'm not aware of it if I did... Yes, I might've criticized 'some' Christians, inerrantists to be precise. I said, "I question those who never have questioned their faith", because often, they believe in the inerrancy totally being oblivious of the contradictions in the Bible. When I ask a question like, "Do you know, there's a discrepancy on the day Jesus was arrested. Matthew, Mark and Luke say it was 'after' the Passover meal, and John says it was 'before'..." "Do you know there are different accounts of who bought the field of blood (where Judas died)?"

And many of them go, "Really?"

(btw, I'm not asking you to justify these discrepancies, I've read some apologists' contortionist-like explanations. I'm only making the point that many 'inerrantist' Christians are not aware that these discrepancies even exist.)

Those Christians are believing the Bible without knowing what's in it. Doesn't that deserve a bit of criticism? Those people espouse inerrancy, but they don't read the Bible! If you truly believe the Bible is 'the inerrant Word of God' and 'God's law itself', don't you want to read/study it every single day whenever you can find time even 30min. here and 30min. there? To me, not being versed in the Bible yet insisting on its inerrancy smacks a bit of 'hypocrisy' (which Jesus taught against).

I have no problem with the Christians who have 'read' the Bible and 'are aware' of the discrepancies but still uphold its reliability such as yourself (but even you don't support the 'literal' inerrancy). It's just a different perspective from mine and I respect that, as long as they know what they are upholding.

And of course, a few bad Catholics do not discredit Catholicism itself (there are bad apples in every corner of the world), but rather, present the problems that 'good' Catholics (like you) should take proactive action for.

Also, if I haven't argued the many points you've made, it's because they are 'your' views and beliefs and I have no intention of trying to change them. Besides I'm totally out of my league in debating you even if I wanted to. (I know I'm gonna get creamed with the level of knowledge I have.)

I don't want to argue over whether the view of 'Tradition' or that of 'liberal/progressive' is right. That's part of the personal faith journey each individual should decide for himself. But since you called my version of Christianity watered-down wine, I'd like to defend myself by saying that I'm only looking for unadulterated wine that doesn't have artificial sweeteners in it.

Reasoning oneself to God is only the start of the journey. Reasons are sensible consolations of the mind, but the journey in Faith takes one into the Mystery of the Divine, and in so doing carries one beyond the powers of the reasoning faculty. Reasoning then becomes secondary. As Anselm said, ‘theology is faith seeking understanding’.

The act of faith is necessarily a ‘step into the dark’, but the ego-oriented western mind needs to be convinced before it will believe. It needs ‘proof’, it needs to be ‘sold’. It’s a consumer mindset which is a tragic disability when it comes to the Way.

I have unshakable faith in both God and Jesus, though 'proof' (physical one that is) is not or will never be available. I have my own 'proof' that I need for my faith. My skepticism comes from my desire of wanting to make sure that I'm following God/Jesus, and not necessarily early Church Fathers (who were humans thus fallible no matter how sincere their intent was), that calls for placing the Bible under scrutiny. It is not ego, I want to be loyal to God, not to man-written books that are unlikely perfect.

"Reasoning then becomes secondary"... I don't know why you have such little regard to "reason" (while exercising excellent reasoning skill yourself in your writing), you'd consider our ability to reason is God-given, wouldn't you? If so, why do you tell me to abandon it?

If you were to go back in time and meet your younger-self who is about to wonder off Tradition, do you think you can convince the young Thomas not to, with all the arguments you've given me? (obviously your parents couldn't) Do you think the young Thomas can understand everything what you know now and digest it perfectly just by hearing your lecture? Aren't your reasoning powers that brought you back to Tradition cultivated by the wondering off you did?

For now, I just want to simply ask questions about what I feel 'I don't get it' about Christianity. If your answer makes sense to me, I'll take it and alter my view, if it doesn't, I won't. But please don't think the wisdoms you shared with me were wasted on me. I may get what you mean years later after I gain more knowledge and experience. I may come back and say, "You know what Thomas, what you said 5 years ago, I realize now that it does make sense!"

Anyway, that's all I can write tonight...

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Tad, where do you get eternal hell from? Why do you think all Christian doctrine has that view? Where did you get that Thomas think that people are sent to hell for eternity?

 

[Thomas]

What's so good about eternal hell?

Nothing. That's the point.

Try looking at it this way:
One Christian image of heaven is a place with people sitting around on clouds, wearing fairy wings, playing harps, singing songs, generally being very, very happy ... it's all rather romantic, it's all rather sentimental ... it's all, I rather think, a lot of tosh.

One Christian image of hell is a place with people being consigned to various torture gardens in some infernal, underground bunker, being tormented by demons, weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth ... it's all rather gothic, it's all rather sentimental ... it's all, I rather think, a lot of tosh.

Another Christian image of heaven is of Union with the Divine ... Quite what that's like I have no idea, but it doesn't involve harps and clouds. It does talk about the union of a fleeting and ephemeral existential being into Being-As-Such, about the finite being drawn into the Infinite ... It's all rather abstract, I'm afraid. Or its all rather 'mystical', but it pushes all the right buttons in me.

Another Christian image of hell is the precise opposite of Union with the Divine. Quite what that's like I do have a very firm idea: Extinction. Not the extinction of nirvana or some other transcendental sense, but the total cessation of what was, for a brief moment, a real being, a being who could have known God.

How can I be more sure of 'eternal death' than 'eternal life'? Easy. Because life is everything (and more than this small mind or soul can comprehend), death is nothing. If I were to paint a picture, I'd say I was in the dark, floating in a void, with all my senses reading 'nothing'; every needle on every gauge pointing at zero ... all I can sense is every smallest particle of my being drifting away, and as they do, I decrease ... until there is nothing there

Now, that image happens to worry me. I know it's no more 'true' than all those medieval horror-film images ... but for me, it pushes the buttons.

To which far too many people will say:
"But there's no pain, no torment. Remorse, maybe, but heck, we've all gone through life regretting things, haven't we? That death ain't so bad ... I could live with dying like that."

In Buddhism, there is the term 'upaya', which translates as 'expedient means'. So if the Buddha paints pictures of eight cold hells and eight hot ones, of demons and such, and all manner of different planes of existence where life is just pitiless suffering ... and if that makes people sit up and listen, and 'sort their lives out', then that's done the job. The end is justified by the means.

Because, I think basically, every religion says 'if that prospect doesn't frighten you, there's something you're not getting, because it should'.

My reason for believing in reincarnation is not that I think it's romantic, but because it 'makes sense' (to me), whereas eternal hell doesn't.

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to frighten you into doing something about it. Not in the next life ... in this one.

I think there's a tendency to think 'another chance', but the point is, you're supposed to make the change in this life. You should treat this chance as your last, best shot, and give it your all.

I think the idea of 'another chance' is a false notion. Tad and Thomas do not reincarnate, everything you and I identify as 'me' is ephemeral in Hinduism and Buddhism, and is a chimera. I think all reincarnation is actually saying is 'life goes on', not this life, but life in general. And if our ancestors have made a mess of things, we're born into that mess and suffer the consequence.

One Buddhist told me when I was in Japan that he views this world as something equivalent to hell where tremendous amount of suffering is supposed to happen one after another. And he's not entirely wrong on this, look around what's happening in the world, look at our history.

I don't hold that view. I think this world is a theophany. I believe God is good, and does not create 'bad' places, or places where the point is to suffer ... this place could be heaven on earth, it could be paradise in an instant, if we loved one another ...

... there would still be tsunamis and sickness and people getting killed by falling trees, but that's the nature of the world, that's not evil, that's just the finite ... there's only one source of evil in the world, and it's man ...

The Christian concept of hell is not 'almost' hopeless, IT IS HOPELESS. I don't know how an all-loving and almighty God would create such a place where some(or many?) of His children can never come back from.

HELL IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOPELESS. SO IS REINCARNATION.

THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING COMFORTABLE, OR ACCEPTABLE, OR OPTIMISTIC, OR ROMANTIC, ABOUT HELL OR REINCARNATION.

... there's no mercy, no compassion...

But my God is Love. My God is the God of Mercy, of Compassion. If that annoys some people, that's probably because they have no place in their heart for love or compassion.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tad, you asked,
　
"Does 'working hard' mean, being selfless, putting others needs before yours, being charitable, trying to help others the best you can, like in Christian teachings? Or is it more like trying to subdue the worldly desires for money and material/physical pleasures like in Buddhism? (although I recognize their core teachings are not that different...)"
　
--> It is both. In nirvana, we have no food, no clothes, no money, no need to work for money, to try to put together an ‘economic kingdom’, no need to be enterprising and build economic enterprises and companies. But many people, after they die, still put together plans on how to make money and how to build an economic empire. This is exactly the meaning of the Greek mythological story of Sisyphus
　
Sisyphus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
In the afterlife, Sisyphus keeps rolling a large ball uphill, only to have it roll downhill, and then he tries to push it uphill again. This goes on for ‘eternity’. The real meaning is, people go to the afterlife, try to build economic enterprises and companies in the afterlife, but these economic enterprises and companies are just illusions, they evaporate, but then the person just tries to build another enterprise or company. These are the kinds of things a person must give up before they can enter nirvana.
　
Our only ‘job’ in nirvana is to help other people. It takes a great deal of selflessness. People who do not develop a great deal of selflessness cannot enter nirvana when they die.
　
In this way, the Christian teachings and Buddhist teachings you described are the same.
　
"What are the differences between salvation and enlightenment?"
　
--> They are completely different. Enlightenment is the idea that we ‘save ourselves’ through our own effort, and earn our way into nirvana. Salvation says Jesus saves us, we do not save ourselves.

Enlightenment is also the idea that we achieve a minimum level of spirituality required for nirvana. A person cannot enter nirvana until they achieve a minimum amount of spirituality (selflessness and a desire to do nothing but help other people, etc.). Salvation does not contain this idea.

Salvation also contains the idea of pledging a belief in Jesus. It is said that, when we ‘apply for admission’ into nirvana, we are not even asked if we believe in Jesus, Buddha, etc.
　
"So, in the Theosophy teaching, do we need to achieve both?"
　
--> According to my interpretation of Theosophy, there is no such thing as salvation.
　
"I should take time searching by thinking deliberately rather than hastily deciding it, just for deciding sake."
　
--> Correct. But your rejection of mistaken religious ideas is part of the path to enlightenment and nirvana. It is said that qualifying for enlightenment is the most difficult thing we will ever do. Salvation is a very easy thing to do.
　
There is no similarity between salvation and enlightenment.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

just to add

Ephesians 2:8-9
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

if its true then this is a truly fantastic incredible gift

 

[Thomas]

I also wanted to talk about how and why "reason" is important to me...

I get that's your conclusion now. But do you think you've been able to come to that realization, if you had stayed without exploring other places?

No, I wouldn't have come to that conclusion, I would have been informed and formed differently. What value that conclusion plays in the greater scheme of things I'm not so sure. We can always say "I'm here because that's where I'm supposed to be," but that's rather more a statement of blind faith than pure logic.

I believe we can only develop it by constantly excising/practicing "reason" the best way we know how at the moment. We just have to keep polishing it with 'trials and errors'. The humans' potential for ability to reason is God-given. Relinquishing it is rejecting God's gift to us.

I absolutely agree, with one reservation. To repeat the Holy Father, 'the mind ascends to God on the wings of faith and reason'. Two wings. Faith and reason are not the same thing. To paraphrase Paul Ricoeur, faith is a matter of conviction, reason is a matter of critique.

What I'm saying is, Christianity is a matter of conviction that we hold to because it is reasonable. Christianity is not an intellectual position, that would reduce it to mere pragmatism. We don't believe in God because it's a better bet (if there is, you win, if there ain't, it doesn't matter. To not believe means you lose, or it doesn't matter.)

What I'm saying is, if you fall in love, that's a matter of conviction. You don't question it, you don't need to, you know you're in love. If someone asks you why you love your partner, you can reel off reasons from dawn tip dusk, and then some ... but you don't fall in love because it's a better bet than not falling in love.

Does this 'they' include me?

No, not at all. I was bringing in something from outside to contrast.

My skepticism comes from my desire of wanting to make sure that I'm following God/Jesus, and not necessarily early Church Fathers (who were humans thus fallible no matter how sincere their intent was), that calls for placing the Bible under scrutiny. It is not ego, I want to be loyal to God, not to man-written books that are unlikely perfect.

But it's only in those man made books that we know about Christ at all.

The Christian Faith is not founded on the works of one Father. Only where all the Fathers are in agreement do we declare that article of faith as 'reliable'.

The Christian Creed is reasonable and reliable when argued from Scripture. Scripture is a Revelation. Revelation, by its very definition, transcends the reasoning faculty — it makes known to man that which, by the power of human reason alone, he might speculate about, but not know with any certainty.

Reasoning is subsequent to experience.

I don't know why you have such little regard to "reason" ... you'd consider our ability to reason is God-given, wouldn't you? If so, why do you tell me to abandon it?

I don't. I say put it in its proper place. If I can say again, I find it eminently reasonable that I fell in love with my partner, but I did not fall in love with her because it was a reasonable thing to do ...

If we are to have 'the mind of Christ', we must make space ... and when I research into the Fathers, the saints, the mystics, the theologians, and see they all say the same, reasoning in their own way, and savour what fruit those who have 'made the space for Christ' bring forth to share with me, then I thank God for Tradition ... it is, like Scripture, His own gift, and each illuminates the other, and makes it reasonable.

Christianity makes more sense to me than anything else I know.

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear ... necessary correctives ...

Salvation says Jesus saves us, we do not save ourselves.

Wrong. It's reciprocal. It's a Covenant.

Enlightenment is also the idea that we achieve a minimum level of spirituality required for nirvana. A person cannot enter nirvana until they achieve a minimum amount of spirituality (selflessness and a desire to do nothing but help other people, etc.). Salvation does not contain this idea.

Wrong. It's reciprocal. It's a Covenant.

Salvation also contains the idea of pledging a belief in Jesus. It is said that, when we ‘apply for admission’ into nirvana, we are not even asked if we believe in Jesus, Buddha, etc.

Wrong. If you seek something you are 'pledging a belief'.

 

[Tadashi]

Tad, where do you get eternal hell from? Why do you think all Christian doctrine has that view? Where did you get that Thomas think that people are sent to hell for eternity?

Well, I might've jumped to the conclusion that Thomas believes in eternal hell because that's what the mainline churches teach from what I've understood, though I'm fully aware 'not all' Christians believe that (as in the article below).

Also, I don't think he had definitively corrected me when I kept saying 'eternal hell'... so I kind of assumed...

Excerpts from catholic.com
(Thomas, please let me know if you think this site isn't very good for learning about Catholicism, or if I'm misunderstanding the content.)

The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons—all have rejected or modified the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer a serious threat. In recent decades, this decay has even invaded mainstream Evangelicalism, and a number of major Evangelical figures have advocated the view that there is no eternal hell—the wicked will simply be annihilated.

But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelation 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).
Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, "In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell. . . . [T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard" (pp. 185–6).

The whole article can be read: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-hell-there-is

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

just to add

Ephesians 2:8-9
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

if its true then this is a truly fantastic incredible gift

Hi NiceCupOfTea,

Yes, I'm with you on that!

As for “good works” vs. “grace” as a key to salvation, I agree with the both concepts because they are not that different from my perspective...

This is how I interpret them. “Good works” cannot be good works without one’s intention being selfless. For example, if we give away money to charities or participate in volunteer activities, so that we’d “look good” to others, that’s buying others’ admiration for ourselves, thus not a good work in the eyes of God. We have to be able to do good even when no one will ever know.

And if you accept “grace”, not just saying that you do, but truly appreciated what you have accepted, you’d be incessantly compelled to do good works, which means if one accepts grace even a few seconds before his death, if he had lived, he would've dedicated the rest of his entire life doing good works, and his desire for wanting to do that is satisfactory enough to God.

So, I feel a bit puzzled when some Catholics and Protestants argue over this (as I've seen in some online forums). To me, it’s the same thing. And regardless of what people say about their beliefs (including agnosticism/atheism), if people genuinely want to do good works, I strongly feel that those people are connected to God whether they realize it or not, and He will accept them.

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Nick, Thomas,

Thank you very much again for your replies to my 'eternal'(pun intended) questions.

I'd have to get back to you guys later (perhaps in a few days), as I'm currently working on a translation project that I must finish soon.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Tad

 

[wil]

Wow Tad, I am surprised you aren't overwhelmed.

It is like going to a buffet of Chinese, Burmese, Thai, Brazilian Steak, Lamb Kabobs, Falafel, Blintzes, Borscht, Gazpacho, Tacos, a flavorgasmic treat that may need tums!

So...I'll provide some antacid....

meditation...contemplation....circumambulation...

Take some time to sit in the silence after your reading...allow it to sink in...feel it, taste it...roll in it like leaves, get up (in your mind) and walk around it, try it on, see what fits, resonates....and what tastes bad.

Now some that tastes bad might be good, and some of what feels good might be bad...to me...it is all good. (cue those that need to create some horrific event to contemplate...and then let them have the good sense to let it go)

To me G!d doesn't 'will' anything...spirit is, G!d is. Not loving, but love itself. All encompassing...but no smiting or temper tantrums...those are mens influences.

 

[ventura23]

Hello, I'm new here. This is actually my first post.
I have no intention of debating over if the concept I post below is either 'right or wrong', but as a Pluralist myself, I'm just curious... I just want to know... how many of you here are for the "Perennial Philosophy"?? And if so, what is the religion you primarily indentify yourself with?

Theistic Rationalism, which many Founding Fathers seemed to subscribe to, is the closest to my belief so far. But I'm not an Unitarian (yet). I'm wanting to believe Jesus' divinity or supernatural ability at least. I fervently venerate Jesus either with his divinity or without.


(from Wikipedia)

The Perennial Philosophy also referred to as Perennialism, is a perspective within the philosophy of religion which views each of the world’s religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown.

Perennialism is a perspective within the philosophy of religion which views each of the world’s religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown. According to this view, each world religion, including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, and Buddhism, is an interpretation of this universal truth adapted to cater for the psychological, intellectual, and social needs of a given culture of a given period of history. The universal truth which lives at heart of each religion has been re-discovered in each epoch by saints, sages, prophets, and philosophers. These include not only the 'founders' of the world's great religions but also gifted and inspired mystics, theologians, and preachers who have revived already existing religions when they had fallen into empty platitudes and hollow ceremonialism.

Religious pluralism holds that various world religions are limited by their distinctive historical and cultural contexts and thus there is no single, true religion. There are only many equally valid religions. Each religion is a direct result of humanity’s attempt to grasp and understand the incomprehensible divine reality. Therefore, each religion has an authentic but ultimately inadequate perception of divine reality, producing a partial understanding of the universal truth, which requires syncretism to achieve a complete understanding as well as a path towards salvation or spiritual enlightenment.

Although perennial philosophy also holds that there is no single true religion, it differs when discussing divine reality. Perennial philosophy states that the divine reality is what allows the universal truth to be understood. Each religion provides its own interpretation of the universal truth, based on its historical and cultural context. Therefore, each religion provides everything required to observe the divine reality and achieve a state in which one will be able to confirm the universal truth and achieve salvation or spiritual enlightenment.

Thanks to whoever puts his/her 2 cents in.

Vaya con Dios,
Tad

Hi
You got your 4 cents in.
I am new here also
I don't identify with any religion, however I will say I am a Christian in my heart.
Louise

 

[Thomas]

If its true then this is a truly fantastic incredible gift

It is ... and it is!

 

[Tadashi]

Wow Tad, I am surprised you aren't overwhelmed.

It is like going to a buffet of Chinese, Burmese, Thai, Brazilian Steak, Lamb Kabobs, Falafel, Blintzes, Borscht, Gazpacho, Tacos, a flavorgasmic treat that may need tums!

So...I'll provide some antacid....

meditation...contemplation....circumambulation...

Haha... I hope I'm not guilty of gluttony...

Antacid... I guess that's exactly what I need now. I should sit quietly for a few days and let it sink in as you suggest. Good advice. Thank you!!

I hope I didn't cause too much heartburn to the people who've been reading my long-winded posts.

I just haven't had people I could discuss my beliefs so openly without worrying about them giving me a strange look, until now. (Well, even though you guys may be making faces behind the computer screen, but that's okay, because I can't see you!)

I'm immensely enjoying this forum.

Again, thank you guys!!

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Hi
You got your 4 cents in.
I am new here also
I don't identify with any religion, however I will say I am a Christian in my heart.
Louise

Hi Louise, nice to meet you and youkoso!(welcome)

I'm looking forward to you putting your 4 cents in also.


Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Well I'm not going to stop just because you're taking a break!

...mainline churches teach...

Weeeell, this isn't a concept I'm very familiar with, or comfortable with. I think 'hell' should be discussed in the relevant context, that is a specific church. So if you want to discuss 'hell' in the Catholic then lets, but we must remember to separate our conclusions from other churches.

You probably talked about Catholicism all along but I assumed that you were speaking generality. And it might be correct to call Catholicism mainline, you probably know that better then me, but I'm not sure what that implies.

"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).

And I will not comment on Catholicism, not my place, but I want to point out that there are two different things concepts in the quote. 'Eternal fire', fire that burns for eternity. And 'eternal separation from God', that one isn't with God. This doesn't necessarily imply that someone live in torment in hell for eternity.

Further, dying in a state of mortal sin is also something worth discussing. Even though it might be a bit heavy for someone like me. First defining 'sin', never any agreement on is forum, and how one would repent. You expressed the idea that simply repenting in ones heart is enough, even though I don't know what the different churches teach, I like that one.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tadashi —

The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell.

Well that is self-evidently true.

But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament.

So is that. But please remember that Our Lord always speaks in figurative terms. He is not teaching metaphysics, He's speaking to the 'man-in-the-street' as it were. The word He uses is not the Hebrew Sheol, but His own, Gehenna.

Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity.

Yes, to do otherwise would be to distort the teaching of Our Lord.

But ... as ever ... what is 'eternity'? The term only has a reference this side of the veil, it only has meaning when there is time. We have no idea of the experience of time beyond the veil, or indeed if there is time at all ... personally I think not, time is a phenomena of the finite and the material. So what we see as 'eternity', a period of time from the beginning of the world to its end, might be nothing more than a fleeting moment on the far side of the veil.

The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.

Yes! So images of fire, torment, etc., are there to reinforce the terribleness of this condition, the utter desolation of the separated from God.

But we know that God is Love; that God desires that not one soul be lost; that God sent His only Son into the world to fulfil that mission ... so God does not will anyone be separate from Him ... but God has made man free, and stands by His word ... so if man chooses to separate himself from God, then God will honour that decision. God does not coerce.

Separation from God is separation from "life and happiness", indeed it's a separation from the source of being ...

Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers ... no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell"

Probably. That's because of the Philosophy of Relativism that governs the Western mindset. There is the desire to make everything palatable, and to discreetly ignore those things we find distasteful. The day a religion finally becomes 'politically correct' is the day it loses touch with reality.

... "In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory (apokatastasis) according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell ...

I think that's a rather 'stiff' reading of the doctrine of apokatastasis. There is room for theological discussion in light of current cosmological theory.

Our Lord said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31) ... there's a starter ... if that's not a claim to divinity, I don't know what is ...

[But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard"

Quite wisely. As I said ... the gates might be open, but the place may be empty.

Remember that Christ went down into hell after the crucifixion (this is the oral teaching of the Tradition, it's not consigned to Scripture). Did He go down to brag? To say "I told you so"? I doubt it. I rather think He went down and said, "Anyone want out?"

 

[Thomas]

As for "good works" vs. "grace" as a key to salvation, I agree with the both concepts because they are not that different from my perspective...

I rather think you haven't got the Christian perspective on this.

Say someone commits a crime, and offends a community, say painting swastikas on tombstones in a Jewish cemetery.

They then realise the error of their ways, own up to the community, and say they will scrub every tombstone clean. That is 'work'.

Whether the community decide to forgive the offender and accept him back into the community is their decision, not his. They are not obliged to forgive him, just because he cleaned the stones. So that is a 'grace' accorded him by the community he offended.

+++

This is how I interpret them. “Good works” cannot be good works without one’s intention being selfless.

I agree.

And if you accept “grace”, not just saying that you do, but truly appreciated what you have accepted, you’d be incessantly compelled to do good works, which means if one accepts grace even a few seconds before his death, if he had lived, he would've dedicated the rest of his entire life doing good works, and his desire for wanting to do that is satisfactory enough to God.

Yes, but the grace comes from without, not from within. We do not manufacture our own grace, as we do the desire to perform good works.

To me, it’s the same thing.

How can they be? One is from self, the other from 'the Other'.

In Christian theological terms, 'grace' means the Immanent Presence of the Holy Spirit, it is the means by which we can dwell in the heart of the Mystery; it is only in the Holy Spirit that we can see the Son for who He is, and in the Son we see the Father (cf Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6). Without that, we see only the man, the human form ...

 

[Tadashi]

Hi ACOP,
(Me:Black, You:Blue)

Weeeell, this isn't a concept I'm very familiar with, or comfortable with. I think 'hell' should be discussed in the relevant context, that is a specific church. So if you want to discuss 'hell' in the Catholic then lets, but we must remember to separate our conclusions from other churches.
You probably talked about Catholicism all along but I assumed that you were speaking generality. And it might be correct to call Catholicism mainline, you probably know that better then me, but I'm not sure what that implies.

Well, perhaps I should've said 'the majority' of Christian churches instead of 'mainline'... I suppose I really don't know what sects/denominations are 'the mainline'... Yes, I was 'generally' speaking... and I thought the Catholic Church (therefore Thomas too) would hold the belief that hell is eternal. But, re-reading what Thomas posted, it may not necessarily be the case...? (I'll ask Thomas more in detail later...)


And I will not comment on Catholicism, not my place, but I want to point out that there are two different things concepts in the quote. 'Eternal fire', fire that burns for eternity. And 'eternal separation from God', that one isn't with God. This doesn't necessarily imply that someone live in torment in hell for eternity.

Yes, I was actually originally thinking the same thing. In the Bible, it's mentioned that condemned souls would be cast into the 'eternal fire' but, it really doesn't say you'll be eternally burned (punished)...'
**Thomas, please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not completely sure...

So, the 'fire' is eternal, but that doesn't mean that the punishment is eternal too...?? But when I read the catholic.com site, it did say "In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46)"

So I took it at the face value that that's what the Catholic Church teaches... And all my Christian friends (Protestants) think so too. They don't think it's physical burning, but it's eternal separation from God just as the site says. And this is my personal view but, being separated from God for eternity is indeed 'torment', well, at least to me.


Further, dying in a state of mortal sin is also something worth discussing. Even though it might be a bit heavy for someone like me. First defining 'sin', never any agreement on is forum, and how one would repent. You expressed the idea that simply repenting in ones heart is enough, even though I don't know what the different churches teach, I like that one.

"dying in a state of mortal sin is also something worth discussing."
Does this mean dying in the midst of committing an atrocious crime (e.g., mass shooting)?

"heavy for someone like me"
Do you mean this for someone who is not particularly religious?

Indeed, defining sin is rather difficult. I can only give you my definition and I expect others may disagree. My definition of sin is "hurting others out of your own selfishness, and not feeling guilty when you've wronged someone." I'm sorry I know it's vague, but this is the best I can do for now. For me, 'sincerely repenting' involves, first admit that you were wrong, apologize and make it up to the person the best you can (when that's possible), and swear not to do it again. If you do this with all sincerity that comes from the bottom of your heart, even though sometimes the person you've wronged may not forgive you, but I think God will forgive you. And again, God can see through you if you're truly repentant or not.

Tad