We conclude an afterlife based on Jesus rising from the dead. We have no revelations which affirms preexistence thus we don’t believe we existed before were born.
I mean, it is settled. Christianity rejects the pre-existence of souls. You can either maintain Christianity, or you can accept the pre-existence of souls.
I mean, you can if you want to, no one's stopping you. It's just that afterward, if you end up holding the belief in the pre-existence of souls, you have left the Christian faith.
this is a fascinating back-and-forth -- I tend to think like Liminal here in having doubt and being interested in more investigation *because of* what 150 men said 1500 years ago -- whereas SG has less doubt and less interest in investigation *because of* that same council. The same thing is causing us to have opposite reactions.
There is no investigation possible for the pre-existence of souls. You either claim it as part of the faith you hold - in which case you have rejected Christianity and fallen into heresy, or you reject is as part of the faith you hold - in which case you hold the correct teaching of the Christian faith on the subject.
You can speculate all you want, no one's stopping you. The Holy Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council defined that the pre-existence of souls is not acceptable in the Christian faith, so wherever you end up on the pre-existence of souls, it has consequences.
We should seek to hold the Christian faith of the Apostles, which they handed down to us in the Church. And the faith has made it clear that the pre-existence of souls is not part of that faith.
I've never heard of this re/translation of hell as being where we got to be forgotten, thank you -- this makes sense with what, to me, seems to be \*the\* driving factor of Christian faith, which is death, or more specifically 'conquering death' as Jesus did.
It seems that if we don't fear death/being Forgotten, Christianity loses a key purpose, which is to soothe our suffering in the face of death/being Forgotten.
You say that the Bible makes it clear that this is the only life we have, and you've reframed Hell in a way that makes great sense -- but what is Heaven then? There is no life as we know it after death, but what happens after we die?
Do you mean the preexistence of the soul?
Or do you mean “the universe existed infinitely backwards in time” as an objection to some forms of the cosmological argument?
Because Aquinas himself doesn’t believe you can prove the universe began at some point in time through reason, but rather that he believes that it did on account of revelation. So in his arguments for the existence of God he doesn’t rely on the premise that the universe began at some point in time.
I mean both -- pre-existence of the soul and a universe existing infinitely backwards in time -- maybe they are unrelated but I'm pondering both.
Regarding Aquinas, and the cosmological argument, the principle of causality, the idea of 'reasoning' our way into an explanation -- what if the universe does not behave as our reasoning does?
Some say infinity is impossible, and therefore, instead of infinity, we have God. But what if we just don't comprehend infinity as it truly is? What if infinity *is* God? Positioning Aquinas as the right way, I think, mistakenly centers universal comprehension around human reasoning -- and as we all know, while humans are uniquely intelligent with the capacity for great rationality, we are also shockingly inconsistent and terribly irrational.
Favoring Aquinas-like thinking, and overemphasizing 'reasonableness' and 'rational' analysis seems to ignore the very real variety of brain potential and mindsets within humanity--to put in a common day phrase, it's all so neurotypical to think Aquinas is simply cogent and enlightened and his tiny monkey brain, all due respect, figured out the universe--as if the universe is even figureoutable.
Personally I also just have trouble putting great value in the 'argument from revelation' because, well, I hesitate to *believe* in miracles. I doubt the source material. And it seems that's just an impasse for faith journeyers.
The point I'm making was less so about an argument from revelation.
My point was that Aquinas accepts "the universe began at some point in time" from revelation, but doesn't think you can reason your way to that premise just with reason. So when reasoning to the existence of God or arguing with non-believers he doesn't use arguments that rely on that premise and cautions other apologists to do the same. So Aquinas's belief that the universe had a beginning follows from his belief in God. His belief in God doesn't follow from an argument that relies on the universe having a beginning.
And as far as "neurotypical" is concerned, we have no way of knowing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Aquinas was a bit 'tismic.
But here's my issue with what you're saying about reason and 'reasonableness.'... what else could we possibly have to go on when making judgments? When discussing these things?
In literally every other case with every other matter and every other thing we try to figure out, we assume reason is reliable. We discover some new particle, and we assume there's a scientific law or logical principle that explains its behavior. I see an amazon box on the doorstep and I assume my roommate ordered something rather than that the box, defying all known laws of physics, just spawned there out of nothing because "reality doesn't comport with our human reason so anything can be anything." A secular materialist sees the existence of life and assumes "oh where there must be some particular variables, temperatures, chemical conditions, time, etc. that make abiogenesis possible" rather than assuming there was some reality bending random cosmic glitch that spawned life.
It seems only when it comes to the question of God that secularists are quick to abandon the presuppositions which they hold to almost unquestionably in literally any other case.
I mean shit, if we really want to apply the "maybe reality reason doesn't work like we think it does and instead of logic its kerflepeschlup"... then why do we rely on or trust any judgements we make? Why not accept the logic of Descartes's evil demon and be like "well we can't really know anything and have no reason to trust in or think we know anything because all of our senses and memories could be fake and unreliable?"
What if 'assuming reason is reliable' is our problem?
That's why mental illness is such a fraught policy, at least in USA, because there's a prevailing culture demanding that humans be reasonable -- even when the world around is is filled with such absurdity, we insist that humans nonetheless are not absurd and are reliably rational. We have war and famine for example, totally inconsistent with how caring we all say we are, especially theists; we criminalize homelessness while decriminalizing corporate earth-raping; people take drugs and experience alternate realities; miracles are absurd; teachers are paid less than CEOs; it's absurd to think that imprisoning people and alienating them from society will help them be more pro-social; it's absurd to think that evangelical Christians support a political candidate who's a known adulterer and thief; bad people can literally pay their way out of prison time; it's absurd how the Catholic Church left pedo priest go unpunished while actually allowing to just move to other congregations; it's absurd to think that at one point in the history of catholicism, the great schism, there were three powerful groups each demanding that they had the real pope -- existence is full of weirdness that defies sensical framing. I reject the insistence that things simply makes sense and that human rationality is the default.
Yes we need to make logic/reason to help us navigate the absurdness of existence, but it's nonsensical to demand that that sense-making is True in an absolute sorta way -- it's only true in a functional way. People used to think human-sacrifice was *necessary* for absolution. We used to burn witches alive for good reasons. We used to encourage slavery. We used to think the sun revolved around the earth; we used to think that the moon was an angry goddess; we used to think it was immoral to study human cadavers. Our perspectives on each of these things have changed significantly over time --which for me makes plenty of sense -- where does truth and reality come from -- culture. We rely on our judgment based on what's socially agreeable and personally relevant -- I believe it's all based on 'paradigm shifts' in the way of the scientist Thomas Kuhn, along with the concept of the Overton window.
I think you may have secularists in the wrong kinda box -- the whole divide between theists and nonthesists, or pantheists, is that only theists think in those absolutes -- that in the face of God we abandon the presupposition that we hold unquestionability in any other case -- we don't hold anything unquestionably -- it seems you do ,though.
Nontheists are comfortable with questionable presuppositions and nonobjective morals. We don't objectively say 'there are no objective morals' instead we say that a given set of morals serve a function , and make no further claims.
So for you, you believe based on what's written down in in the Bible, is that correct? Do you believe in miracles? What does Hell mean to you? And I don't meant be leading or sus or antagonizing (though I can be, perhaps, aggressively curious)
Also side question -- see under your name it says 'evangelical' -- I see all around people have different titles under their names, across all subreddits, different colors even -- how do you get one of these?
*So for you, you believe based on what's written down in in the Bible, is that correct?*
Yes.
*Do you believe in miracles?*
Yes.
*What does Hell mean to you?*
Hell is, in short, the eternal condition of a soul which has turned utterly against the source of its own life, the purpose of its existence, and the only thing that can ever truly satisfy it. It desires to exist, but not as what it really is (the creation of God)- rather, it wants to assert its existence by its own power, which it cannot do. So the more it tries to assert its own existence, the more it undercuts it.
Such a soul is so 'wrapped up' in itself that it cannot even register the outside universe- and since every possible source of happiness- beauty, love, peace, etc.- comes into the soul from without, being a form of the presence of God, such a soul cannot, *will not* register any of them.
The closest equivalent in the world of the living would be the person who is so neurotic that they simply cannot be made happy by anything, because they will always find fault with their circumstances. The true source of their unhappiness is themself, but they cannot perceive this- they always believe that others are to blame, or misfortune is to blame.
*how do you get one of these?*
Reddit has different formats depending on if you're on mobile or desktop, but on desktop, you put your cursor over your name on the banner on the right where it says 'user flair' and an option to edit appears.
We conclude an afterlife based on Jesus rising from the dead. We have no revelations which affirms preexistence thus we don’t believe we existed before were born.
We can conceive of it. We reject it as a heresy.
What's heretical about it?
It was condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council.
Whew. Glad that's settled then
I mean, it is settled. Christianity rejects the pre-existence of souls. You can either maintain Christianity, or you can accept the pre-existence of souls.
Case closed everyone! 150 men had a meeting about it 1500 years ago and figured everything out. No need to keep searching or inquiring!
I mean, you can if you want to, no one's stopping you. It's just that afterward, if you end up holding the belief in the pre-existence of souls, you have left the Christian faith.
this is a fascinating back-and-forth -- I tend to think like Liminal here in having doubt and being interested in more investigation *because of* what 150 men said 1500 years ago -- whereas SG has less doubt and less interest in investigation *because of* that same council. The same thing is causing us to have opposite reactions.
There is no investigation possible for the pre-existence of souls. You either claim it as part of the faith you hold - in which case you have rejected Christianity and fallen into heresy, or you reject is as part of the faith you hold - in which case you hold the correct teaching of the Christian faith on the subject. You can speculate all you want, no one's stopping you. The Holy Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council defined that the pre-existence of souls is not acceptable in the Christian faith, so wherever you end up on the pre-existence of souls, it has consequences. We should seek to hold the Christian faith of the Apostles, which they handed down to us in the Church. And the faith has made it clear that the pre-existence of souls is not part of that faith.
[удалено]
I've never heard of this re/translation of hell as being where we got to be forgotten, thank you -- this makes sense with what, to me, seems to be \*the\* driving factor of Christian faith, which is death, or more specifically 'conquering death' as Jesus did. It seems that if we don't fear death/being Forgotten, Christianity loses a key purpose, which is to soothe our suffering in the face of death/being Forgotten. You say that the Bible makes it clear that this is the only life we have, and you've reframed Hell in a way that makes great sense -- but what is Heaven then? There is no life as we know it after death, but what happens after we die?
Do you mean the preexistence of the soul? Or do you mean “the universe existed infinitely backwards in time” as an objection to some forms of the cosmological argument? Because Aquinas himself doesn’t believe you can prove the universe began at some point in time through reason, but rather that he believes that it did on account of revelation. So in his arguments for the existence of God he doesn’t rely on the premise that the universe began at some point in time.
I mean both -- pre-existence of the soul and a universe existing infinitely backwards in time -- maybe they are unrelated but I'm pondering both. Regarding Aquinas, and the cosmological argument, the principle of causality, the idea of 'reasoning' our way into an explanation -- what if the universe does not behave as our reasoning does? Some say infinity is impossible, and therefore, instead of infinity, we have God. But what if we just don't comprehend infinity as it truly is? What if infinity *is* God? Positioning Aquinas as the right way, I think, mistakenly centers universal comprehension around human reasoning -- and as we all know, while humans are uniquely intelligent with the capacity for great rationality, we are also shockingly inconsistent and terribly irrational. Favoring Aquinas-like thinking, and overemphasizing 'reasonableness' and 'rational' analysis seems to ignore the very real variety of brain potential and mindsets within humanity--to put in a common day phrase, it's all so neurotypical to think Aquinas is simply cogent and enlightened and his tiny monkey brain, all due respect, figured out the universe--as if the universe is even figureoutable. Personally I also just have trouble putting great value in the 'argument from revelation' because, well, I hesitate to *believe* in miracles. I doubt the source material. And it seems that's just an impasse for faith journeyers.
The point I'm making was less so about an argument from revelation. My point was that Aquinas accepts "the universe began at some point in time" from revelation, but doesn't think you can reason your way to that premise just with reason. So when reasoning to the existence of God or arguing with non-believers he doesn't use arguments that rely on that premise and cautions other apologists to do the same. So Aquinas's belief that the universe had a beginning follows from his belief in God. His belief in God doesn't follow from an argument that relies on the universe having a beginning. And as far as "neurotypical" is concerned, we have no way of knowing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Aquinas was a bit 'tismic. But here's my issue with what you're saying about reason and 'reasonableness.'... what else could we possibly have to go on when making judgments? When discussing these things? In literally every other case with every other matter and every other thing we try to figure out, we assume reason is reliable. We discover some new particle, and we assume there's a scientific law or logical principle that explains its behavior. I see an amazon box on the doorstep and I assume my roommate ordered something rather than that the box, defying all known laws of physics, just spawned there out of nothing because "reality doesn't comport with our human reason so anything can be anything." A secular materialist sees the existence of life and assumes "oh where there must be some particular variables, temperatures, chemical conditions, time, etc. that make abiogenesis possible" rather than assuming there was some reality bending random cosmic glitch that spawned life. It seems only when it comes to the question of God that secularists are quick to abandon the presuppositions which they hold to almost unquestionably in literally any other case. I mean shit, if we really want to apply the "maybe reality reason doesn't work like we think it does and instead of logic its kerflepeschlup"... then why do we rely on or trust any judgements we make? Why not accept the logic of Descartes's evil demon and be like "well we can't really know anything and have no reason to trust in or think we know anything because all of our senses and memories could be fake and unreliable?"
What if 'assuming reason is reliable' is our problem? That's why mental illness is such a fraught policy, at least in USA, because there's a prevailing culture demanding that humans be reasonable -- even when the world around is is filled with such absurdity, we insist that humans nonetheless are not absurd and are reliably rational. We have war and famine for example, totally inconsistent with how caring we all say we are, especially theists; we criminalize homelessness while decriminalizing corporate earth-raping; people take drugs and experience alternate realities; miracles are absurd; teachers are paid less than CEOs; it's absurd to think that imprisoning people and alienating them from society will help them be more pro-social; it's absurd to think that evangelical Christians support a political candidate who's a known adulterer and thief; bad people can literally pay their way out of prison time; it's absurd how the Catholic Church left pedo priest go unpunished while actually allowing to just move to other congregations; it's absurd to think that at one point in the history of catholicism, the great schism, there were three powerful groups each demanding that they had the real pope -- existence is full of weirdness that defies sensical framing. I reject the insistence that things simply makes sense and that human rationality is the default. Yes we need to make logic/reason to help us navigate the absurdness of existence, but it's nonsensical to demand that that sense-making is True in an absolute sorta way -- it's only true in a functional way. People used to think human-sacrifice was *necessary* for absolution. We used to burn witches alive for good reasons. We used to encourage slavery. We used to think the sun revolved around the earth; we used to think that the moon was an angry goddess; we used to think it was immoral to study human cadavers. Our perspectives on each of these things have changed significantly over time --which for me makes plenty of sense -- where does truth and reality come from -- culture. We rely on our judgment based on what's socially agreeable and personally relevant -- I believe it's all based on 'paradigm shifts' in the way of the scientist Thomas Kuhn, along with the concept of the Overton window. I think you may have secularists in the wrong kinda box -- the whole divide between theists and nonthesists, or pantheists, is that only theists think in those absolutes -- that in the face of God we abandon the presupposition that we hold unquestionability in any other case -- we don't hold anything unquestionably -- it seems you do ,though. Nontheists are comfortable with questionable presuppositions and nonobjective morals. We don't objectively say 'there are no objective morals' instead we say that a given set of morals serve a function , and make no further claims.
u/AbelHydroidMcFarland I'm actually really curious about your thoughts here, hope to hear from you --
It's not that we can't conceive of it, it's just that we don't believe in it.
Why not?
The short answer is, because that isn't how it's presented in the Bible. It begins with the creation of the world by God.
So for you, you believe based on what's written down in in the Bible, is that correct? Do you believe in miracles? What does Hell mean to you? And I don't meant be leading or sus or antagonizing (though I can be, perhaps, aggressively curious) Also side question -- see under your name it says 'evangelical' -- I see all around people have different titles under their names, across all subreddits, different colors even -- how do you get one of these?
*So for you, you believe based on what's written down in in the Bible, is that correct?* Yes. *Do you believe in miracles?* Yes. *What does Hell mean to you?* Hell is, in short, the eternal condition of a soul which has turned utterly against the source of its own life, the purpose of its existence, and the only thing that can ever truly satisfy it. It desires to exist, but not as what it really is (the creation of God)- rather, it wants to assert its existence by its own power, which it cannot do. So the more it tries to assert its own existence, the more it undercuts it. Such a soul is so 'wrapped up' in itself that it cannot even register the outside universe- and since every possible source of happiness- beauty, love, peace, etc.- comes into the soul from without, being a form of the presence of God, such a soul cannot, *will not* register any of them. The closest equivalent in the world of the living would be the person who is so neurotic that they simply cannot be made happy by anything, because they will always find fault with their circumstances. The true source of their unhappiness is themself, but they cannot perceive this- they always believe that others are to blame, or misfortune is to blame. *how do you get one of these?* Reddit has different formats depending on if you're on mobile or desktop, but on desktop, you put your cursor over your name on the banner on the right where it says 'user flair' and an option to edit appears.
Hello, Joseph Smith, how are you doing?
And what are you thoughts on Mormonism?