The Perennial Philosophy

Skull, pleased meet you!

Thank you very much for your encouraging words and advice.
I look forward to talking to you ;)

Tad
 
Nick, I'm still working on my project... turned out to be a bit more time-consuming (requires some research) than I thought... got the due date extended though...

But if you like, you guys can start discussing about whether hell is eternal or not. I'll catch up later...


Thomas, it's nothing political. Nick is just telling me his beliefs/perspectives, you can dispute them if you disagree as usual. (Sessa-takuma, right? ;))


I should be able to come back to the forum by the weekend.

Tad
 
Tadashi said:
Hi donnann,

I really really really HOPE hell is not forever, but the Bible says,
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV)

How do we interpret "everlasting punishment"?

Tad
Click to expand...

Aeon is a cycle of time, thus has an end & beginning. So 'everlasting' is a poor translation. Here is someone on the internet saying the same:

Aionion should not have been translated “everlasting” because aion and its adjective are clearly time words that have beginnings and endings. And “punishment” for the Greek “kolasin” is too strong a word. Kolasin means “to prune a tree to make it more fruitful.” There is nothing fruitful about eternal damnation in burning flames. If Jesus wanted to imply vindictive punishment, the author of Matthew could have chosen the Greek word “timoria,” but he didn’t – he used a much softer word.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Tad —
Tadashi said:
How do we interpret "everlasting punishment"?
Click to expand...
How about hell is an 'eternal' possibility as long as the world lasts as it is?

Matthew points out that 'these' go into everlasting punishment, but that rather presupposes the have rejected the salvific Grace of Our Lord?

(So you get to the Pearly Gates, St Peter says 'the Boss would like a word,' and some might say, for reasons unfathomable, 'No thanks ... '
 
Thomas,

So, this "salvific Grace of Our Lord" will be given to everyone (nonbelievers too) at the time of their death and we all get to go to the Pearly Gates regardless? If so then I guess I may be able to understand it. Because who would ever say 'No thanks' to St. Peter, I'd think all skeptics will immediately convert as soon as they arrive at the Pearly Gates! lol...

I was thinking the same thing about the second coming of Jesus too. As soon as we see him coming down through the clouds, there won't be any skeptics left on earth! So, we will all be saved after all then! ;)


Tad
 
Skull,

Thank you for such interesting reading material.
I'll take a look at it as soon as I'm able to.

And yes, translation changes everything... (I'm one of those who know firsthand there's no such thing as a 100% perfect translation. Some nuances here and there are always likely to get lost.)

Well, so much for the King James Only Movement... I remember Theologian Daniel Wallace (who supports the authenticity/reliability of NT, but not inerrancy) saying a funny story in his speech that a KJV inerrantist actually said to him, "If it was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me." lol... I think the majority of Christian crowd needs a history lesson, and churches should actively teach them.

So, unless I'm fluent in both Hebrew and Greek, I really won't be able to truthfully understand the Bible... :( So it might be better for me to read various experts' interpretations (from both sides) than reading it myself if I wanted to get to the closer picture of what the verses mean...

Tad
 
Tadashi said:
Thomas, it's nothing political. Nick is just telling me his beliefs/perspectives, you can dispute them if you disagree as usual. (Sessa-takuma, right? ;))
Click to expand...
No, I'm afraid it's not sessa-takuma at all.

Nick persistently and consistently misrepresents Christian doctrine — he's spreading a false doctrine of his own.

I correct his errors for the benefit of others. I think I'm on his ignore list.

My accusation of 'politics' is laid against those who seem to need to ridicule or discredit other religions to bolster their faith in their own.

As for sessa-takuma, well that's why I post here. I must say, I think our discussions have been fruitful, cordial and we can agree to disagree without unnecessary detrimental comments about the faith of others.

On my shelves I have about 40 books by recent exponents of the Perennial Tradition. It's thanks to them that I am, first and foremost, a Christian symbolist – that is my faith is founded on an understanding of the particular symbolism of the Christian Scriptures.

I am in distant touch with those of my faith who have also encountered the Philosophia Perennis as presented in Christianity. We all, for reasons I can and have made clear often, believe because it is reasonable, although our belief is founded not merely on the recta ratio of Christian doctrine – an insight gleaned from Marco Pallis, a tibetan Buddhist, whom I especially revere among the Perennialists for his open attitude to other faiths.

Like them (Borella and Sherard), I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the Perennialists — even though I find myself in disagreement with some of their claims. Jean Borella is a Catholic theologian who wrote has written a response to Guénon that's staggering reading, Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery. Philip Sherrard is Greek Orthodox who wrote Christianity, Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition, which also questions some of the Perennialist views.

I can reason my faith with recourse to seeking to discredit the faith of others.

I wish others do the same.
 
Nick,

I promised my girlfriend that we go on a little outdoor excursion after I finish the project. (She often points out that I spend too much time in front of the computer and she is right.)

I'll come back with a refreshed mind :)
Talk to you guys more later then!

Tad
 
Thomas, not to worry. I'm not the kind of person who swallows anything without examining it myself. (my skepticism works both ways.) So if you think Catholicism or the Bible is misrepresented by anyone, you should refute them and I'll always consider your rebuts (and often enjoy them and admire your intellect whether I agree or disagree with you.) ;)

Tad
 
Thomas,

The Pilot will respond himself, but "Nick persistently and consistently misrepresents Christian doctrine — he's spreading a false doctrine of his own." is not the case.

Nick is a theosophist and is giving his theosophical view of Xtianity. If he presented Xtian doctrine as a Xtian would, then he would be a Xtian, which he is not.

Not all theosophists have identical views of Xtianity.
 
Skull said:
Nick is a theosophist and is giving his theosophical view of Xtianity. If he presented Xtian doctrine as a Xtian would, then he would be a Xtian, which he is not.
Click to expand...
Sorry, don't buy it. Because he's not a Christian that does not mean he can present his own views of what he thinks Christians believe as fact. He's entitled to his opinion – he's made himself clear on that point – but that does not entitle him to misrepresent the doctrine.
 
Thomas said:
Sorry, don't buy it. Because he's not a Christian that does not mean he can present his own views of what he thinks Christians believe as fact. He's entitled to his opinion – he's made himself clear on that point – but that does not entitle him to misrepresent the doctrine.
Click to expand...

Have not followed all of the Pilot's posts, but doubt he ever wrote or thought "what he thinks Christians believe as fact"

Some heretical Xtians may have or do now, believe unpopular, non-magisterium things. Besides, very early Xtians were not of one mind on every doctrine. So 'what Christians believe' would not cover every professed Xtian.

What say you Nick?
 
Tad and Skull,

It is my contention that the idea of eternity did not appear in the original version of the Bible but was added later. Let's take a look at the idea of "eternity" as written in Psalm 90:2. Here are a few examples of how Psalm 90:2 has been translated into English:

"...from everlasting to everlasting..." (King James version)

"...forever and ever..." (New Life version)

"...from eternity to eternity..." (Darby Translation)

"...from age unto age..." (Young's Literal Translation)

Psalm 90:2 - Bible Gateway

How can one everlasting be followed by another everlasting? Why is the word "forever" followed by the words "and ever", isn't the single word "forever" enough?

The answer: The words "eternity" and "everlasting" were translated from a word which does NOT mean eternity. I want to introduce the Sanskrit word "kalpa", which is a period of billions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

(The wikipedia link is not working properly, it is leaving off the last parenthesis. Add a final parenthesis to make the link work.)

The best translation of Psalm 90:2 is "from kalpa to kalpa". (Surprisingly, the Young's Literal Translation correctly conveys this non-eternal idea.)

From these examples we can see that the idea of "eternity" originally meant a period of billions of years (a kalpa). The idea that "hell" can last for billions of years but not forever is an idea that agrees with Theosophical teaching. When the phrase "...from everlasting to everlasting..." is rendered into "...from kalpa to kalpa..." it finally makes sense and conveys the meaning from the original translation.

I contend that the original version of the Bible does not teach the idea of an eternal hell or heaven, and the above Psalm 90:2 examples support my contention.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
How can one everlasting be followed by another everlasting? Why is the word "forever" followed by the words "and ever", isn't the single word "forever" enough?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. But the Bible is not a 'technical' text, and the Hebrew mindset was determined by its own cultural, and in this case religious, experience. It's a mythopoeic term, meaning time without end, that is a duration of time in which no beginning nor end can be perceived or conceived. It's contradiction is used to convey the sense of no known duration of time.

Nick the Pilot said:
The words "eternity" and "everlasting" were translated from a word which does NOT mean eternity.
Click to expand...
It's from the Hebrew, which means many things, one of them being 'eternity':
owlam from the primitive root alam meaning concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:--alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). (Strong's Concordance, accepted by scholars everywhere)
Click to expand...

Nick the Pilot said:
I want to introduce the Sanskrit word "kalpa", which is a period of billions of years.
Click to expand...
A problem with that as I see it:
The first is you've clearly indicated you don't really understand the linguistics of the Hebrew language;
The term kalpa derives from Hindu cosmology, which is utterly different to Hebrew cosmology;
One really should not transpose words, one should ensure one had a proper grasp of both terms in their own contexts, then determine whether the one word adequately conveys the meaning of the other.

Nick the Pilot said:
I contend that the original version of the Bible does not teach the idea of an eternal hell or heaven, and the above Psalm 90:2 examples support my contention.
Click to expand...
Well your contention is not supported by any discussion of the two terms.

I would respond, based on the comparisons of Hebrew and Hindu cosmology, that the two terms mean different things. The Hebrew can infer a given period of time, a given time in the past, or the future, or an infinite duration of time, depending on context. The Hindu infers a fixed period of time within a series, or larger timeframe.
 
Another point:

If one translates kalpa as aeon, as Nick suggests, then it's worth looking at the etymology of that term:
... from Latin aeon, from Greek aion "age, vital force, a period of existence, lifetime, generation;" in plural, "eternity," from PIE root *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, eternity" (cf. Sanskrit ayu "life," Avestan ayu "age," Latin aevum "space of time, eternity," Gothic aiws "age, eternity," Old Norse ævi "lifetime," German ewig "everlasting," Old English a "ever, always").
Click to expand...
The emphasis is mine, as it indicates by repeating the term, as in 'age of ages' or 'from aeon to aeon' means 'eternity', and 'eternally' and, indeed, quite simply, for ever.

Or as we say in English, 'for ever and ever' to signify an immeasurable duration of time.

Interesting to see the correspondences between the ancient languages, though.
 
Hyperbole and mystery are big parts in story telling...

And word usage now/then...here/there... is amazing... You Brits call a cigarette a ***...here that is/was a nasty slang for gay male....gay...30 years ago in the states it meant happy, joyous, fun loving...and while I am not saying gays aint happy, joyous and funloving, I am saying in half a century the word has changed tunes, As a kid we were told we could have a 'gay old time' with Fred and Barney on the Flintstones. That is interpreted completely different today...not 2000 years later, not even 100 years later.

So we've got us plenty of scholars, top notch intelligent folks outstanding in their field each with an agenda...make a name for themselves, their belief system, or both. Again we've got an American Mythology about Valley Forge...250 years ago. Now we've got plenty of information and lots of detail, and it was only right here just a while ago... But the men weren't a rag tag, ill fed, frostbitten army...they were a well formed army, well fed, fully uniformed, training daily, zero cases of frostbite in a mighty cold winter..That is exactly how efficient that army of 10,000 was... But why do we have the mythology? Because General George Washington wrote the men were 'Starving and Naked'... and they were, but it doesn't mean what we think it means...it was written to his superior....it is carved in stone over an arch in the park...it is written in history books under pictures of half clothed men looking freezing with rags tied to their feet....and it was taught that way to us in school... but it is all a misinterpretation of the facts and the words and their specific colloquial meaning.

Like forgiving someone 70 times 7....really? I have to forgive you 490 times? And at 491 I no longer have to 'turn the other cheek'? The concept that ANYONE or any group has all the interpretations of all the colloquialisms in the bible, all the various possible meanings of words exactly correctly....

Reminds me of the old saw....."Oh...it didn't say celibate...it was CELEBRATE"
 
wil said:
Hyperbole and mystery are big parts in story telling...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is another of your 'sweeping generalisations'. 'Story telling' is too broad a category. Children's stories, discovery stories, histories, testimonies, mythologies, fictions ... not all story telling is the same, is it?

You just lump everything into the one hat, look for the most trivial and banal instances to dismiss everything else.

That which one assumes to be hyperbole is the measure of disbelief. I accept that there are good grounds to disbelieve in some accounts, but it is an insufficient reason to disbelieve every account, on the basis that there is no jolly, white-beared old fellow who lives at the North Pole...

Or that because '***' can mean a cigarette, a junior in a school who performs tasks for a senior, an unwelcome task, an onerous burden, an abusive term referring to homosexuals, that means that nothing can be understood with any certainty at all.

And again you make no attempt to discern between 'mysteries', those things you don't know and cannot know; those questions present in all the natural sciences, and Mystery as spoken of in sacred texts and traditional metaphysical systems – that which by virtue of the fact that it transcends nature, transcends our understanding, but is not, by Grace, utterly unapproachable and entirely unknowable.

I totally agree that the the word signifies quite different things, but that does not mean we can have no faith in language.

What is love, for example, is one question, but can evoke different answers, depending on the context of the question.

wil said:
And word usage now/then...here/there... is amazing... You Brits call a cigarette a ***...
Click to expand...
So every word is uncertain? There is no meaningful communication between any two people?

You determine everything on the basis of the various meanings of the word '***'?

How can you have any faith in the material world, let alone the spiritual?

C'mon Wil ... where's all this uncertainty coming from?

It seems to me the next thing you'll declare is there is no God, nor is there any good, just pragmatism and that which happens to benefit you ... and I don't believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top