Have you heard of ancient days
The mystery of a mighty race
Giants dwelt upon the earth
Lawless and obsceneThe kindred
Men of great renown
Dark and grim
Spawn of fallen angelsThe sons of God
Inflamed by lust and unnatural temptation
Legend has it Semjâzâ was the leader of the cursedOn human flesh fell their eyes
Lustful eyes
They viewed in great despise
Their own inhabitationIn their pride they bent the laws of all creation
Behold the scriptures state
These Angels still await the judgement of their GodBehold mystery
Behold mythologyO Raphael bind Azazel
O Gabriel proceed against the bastardsFar below the foundations of existence
In eternal chains they dwell
Angels await the fire
Rebels await the fire
Hell in the Book of Revelation
This is the twelfth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.
One text which seems to speak of eternal torment is found in Revelation:
“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of His wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises up for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image… (Rev 14.9-11)
Revelation is, of course, a difficult book to interpret. It is full of apocalyptic images, most of which should not be taken literally. (See Obadiah’s Little Booklet #8 on the Book of Revelation.) One must wonder how literally we should take this burning sulphur (or “fire and brimstone”) when it is said to issue from horses’ mouths (Rev 9.17). This fire is symbolic—it is not literal. We may compare it to a similar image of God’s judgement: “they shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God” (Rev 14.10). Most Christians will recognise that the “wine” is symbolic—though many will still think that the fire of hell is literal.
The figurative—or poetic—nature of Revelation’s imagery should be clear when we read that “death” is thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20.14). Obviously death cannot literally be thrown into hell—we are dealing with metaphor and symbolism. Death is symbolically destroyed.
How we are to understand the mark of the beast and the punishment of those who take it is highly debatable. Given the abuse which Revelation has been subjected to through excessively literalistic interpretations we should, at very least, proceed with caution when building doctrines on a passage in a book which is symbolic and figurative.
Revelation says that in the future there will be “no more death, neither sorrow, or crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Rev 21.4).
We may understand that in heaven there will be no more suffering—but what of those whose loved ones are suffering in hell? When one of my children becomes sick, I am saddened. When my mother-in-law got cancer and died, we suffered, to some extent, alongside her. If Helen, my wife, were to be seriously injured in a car accident, I too would feel pain. If I were to go to heaven and find that some of those whom I love were suffering in an even more severe way, I would not be ecstatically happy—I would feel sorrow and pain. If everyone in heaven knows that people are being eternally tortured by God, including friends and family, how could heaven be a place of bliss? In what way would it be a place of “neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain”?
And how could we feel love for a God who kept such loved ones eternally alive, merely to see them suffer? And how could such eternal suffering be justified if it is a judgement for deeds committed in ignorance in just a handful of years on earth?
Dualism
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.
Also known as Benchley’s Law of Distinction, this quote is due to Robert Benchley, US actor, author, and humourist (1889 – 1945). Benchley was a dualist.
Benchley was a dualist about kinds of people, but you can be a dualist about anything. “There are two kinds of …” Just fill in the dots.
Dualism usually refers to dualism in the philosophy of mind and it usually refers to substance dualism (also known as Cartesian dualism).
In philosophy of mind, dualism is [a view] about the relationship between mind and matter, which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories. In particular, mind-body dualism claims that neither the mind nor matter can be reduced to each other in any way, and thus is opposed to materialism in general, and reductive materialism in particular. Mind-body dualism can exist as substance dualism which claims that the mind and the body are composed of a distinct substance, and as property dualism which claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other. This type of dualism is sometimes referred to as “mind and body” and stands in contrast to philosophical monism, which views mind and matter as being ultimately the same kind of thing. …
If you think that mind can be “reduced” to matter (as I do) then you are not a dualist, you are a monist. If you think that matter is made of mind (as Tim does) then you are also not a dualist, you are a monist. Either way, you think that, ultimately, there is only one kind of stuff of which man’s mind is made.
Descartes, after whom Cartesian dualism is named, is famous for the phrase, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ There’s another phrase he used in Meditations on First Philosophy. It is ‘clear and distinct idea.’
Furthermore, my mind is me, for the following reason. I know that I exist and that nothing else belongs to my nature or essence except that I am a thinking thing; from this it follows that my essence consists solely in my being a thinking thing, even though there may be a body that is very closely joined to me. I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn’t extended, and one of body as something that is extended and does not think. So it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it.
‘Clear and distinct’ is on a par with ‘self-evident’. An idea that’s clear and distinct to one person may be unclear and indistinct to another. And I don’t think much of Cartesian dualism. But I mention this phrase because it summarises two things (there are others) I think every philosopher should aspire to.
(1) Being clear.
(2) Distinguishing between distinct things.
This post is apropos of nothing in particular.
And now for something completely different
Good rap music!
Grimy, old school rap music!
Whoop, whoop!
I’m going to see KRS-One tonight with my son Blake. 🙂
John 10:14-18
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” (NIV)
A closer look at pornography
When I was 8 or 9 years old, I acquired a split beaver magazine. You can imagine my disappointment when, upon examination of the photos with a microscope, I found that all I could see was dots.
We’re made out of meat
The human soul is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. Like I said, we’re made of meat.
Or lego. Or matter. Or spirit. You see, it doesn’t matter what we’re made of. Because what we are is not what we’re made of. What we are is what we’re made into.
They’re made out of meat.
Meat?
Meat. They’re made out of meat.
Meat?
There’s no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They’re completely meat.
That’s impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars.
They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don’t come from them. The signals come from machines.
So who made the machines? That’s who we want to contact.
They made the machines. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Meat made the machines.
That’s ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You’re asking me to believe in sentient meat.
I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they’re made out of meat.
Maybe they’re like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage.
Nope. They’re born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn’t take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?
Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside.
Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re meat all the way through.
No brain?
Oh, there is a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat!
So… what does the thinking?
You’re not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat.
Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!
Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?
Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of meat.
Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they’ve been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years.
So what does the meat have in mind?
First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual.
We’re supposed to talk to meat?
That’s the idea. That’s the message they’re sending out by radio. ‘Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?’ That sort of thing.
They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?
Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat.
I thought you just told me they used radio.
They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat.
Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?
Officially or unofficially?
Both.
Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multi-beings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing.
I was hoping you would say that.
It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?
I agree one hundred percent. What’s there to say?” `Hello, meat. How’s it going?’ But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?
Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can’t live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact.
So we just pretend there’s no one home in the universe.
That’s it.
Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You’re sure they won’t remember?
They’ll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we’re just a dream to them.
A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat’s dream.
And we can mark this sector unoccupied.
Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?
Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.
They always come around.
And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the universe would be if one were all alone.
They’re Made Out Of Meat
by Terry Bisson
From “Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories,” Copyright © 1994, Tor Books
Used By Permission
Is God the source of Morality? Flannagan vs Bradley.
Civil Society Merely Skin Deep.
What separates our Modern society from savagery and Barbarism? Not a Lot.
If we are to assume We enjoy a higher quality of life today because of Lessons hard learned from the mistakes of history, I regret to say we are fast forgetting them…and thus doomed to repeat the process.
I was stimulated to such contemplations today when confronted by blunt and self-righteous calls to not bother giving The Norwegian Mass murderer Brevick a trial… apparently He does not deserve one… but ought to be lynched or shot.
Silly me. Here was I criticizing the Norwegian justice system for not allowing Anders Behring Breivik to say what he wanted in his own defence (Apparently they feel that if they allow him to read his 8000 word ‘New Manifesto’ that he will somehow be ‘winning a personal victory’… or may inspire other psychos to join his cause). I was saying that The Trial needs to follow due process, not muzzle the defendant… yet I was met with howls of Hatred that said that no trial was necessary…
“You would not be ‘so easy’ on him if he had killed one of your kids.” Quoth He.
I tried to explain to my detractors that if they were to simply execute him that they would in fact be no better than him, as he thought he had the right to execute 77 people without trial too.
I said It is vitally important that He gets a proper defence and is not unduly restricted from voicing his reasons why he did what he did.
That this will involve enduring a hatful and deluded tirade, which he will no doubt take great pleasure in preaching to the Media of the world… is not a good enough reason to deny him due process.
“The Bastard does not deserve it”… !!!! ???
A Fair trial is not a reward, Its not a prize, It’s an essential process which attempts to assure an Impartial judgement so that innocent people are not wrongfully punished. This is part of the vital machinery which differentiates a Civil society from a barbaric one governed by UTU/ vengeance.
“The Court case will cost Millions of Dollars! Why waste the money on a scum bag like him!” Quoth He…
I replied that I much prefer my Taxes go towards having a good justice system, rather than Paying hundreds of millions of Dollars in ‘bail outs’ or to Bludgers to sit on the dole or DPB!
I said that having a well organised and funded Justice system is one of the Few Legitimate and necessary duties of Government.
Was this little smoko room chat an oddity or was it an indication of a common mindset?
It appears to me that here in NZ, as in Norway that people have indeed forgotten what justice and civilisation is all about. Today people are more concerned with vengeance, and are not prepared to endure what must be endured for the sake of Justice.
Yes It is scary to realise just how thin is the skin of our civilisation… how close to Barbarism we lurk, and how easily tyranny could take advantage of the prevailing darkness.
I hope the Norwegians give Brevick a fair and just trial.
That is the only way he can be convicted fairly and justly punished… And Norway can maintain their claim to be a civil society.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Hell: The Logic of Damnation.
Book Reveiw. http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P00167
“Focusing on the issues from the standpoint of philosophical theology, Walls explores the doctrine of hell in relation to both the divine nature and human nature. He argues that some traditional versions of the doctrine are compatible not only with God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but also with a strong account of His perfect goodness.”
Reviews
“This book is a gem, clearly written and accessible to philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Within a fairly brief scope it covers the central issues and arguments relevant to its topic . . . Further, the book makes a case that universalists will find very hard to answer.” —Religious Studies
“Walls . . . does not think that because a culture trivializes the concept of hell it does not exist, nor does he think that belief in the existence of hell compromises belief in a good and loving God.”—Christian Century
“Hell: The Logic of Damnation is a forcefully argued reopening of questions that most liberal theologians had long thought to be decisively closed. . . . Jerry Walls has provided a bracing antidote to the moral frivolity and evil of our time.”—First Things
Sorry about this next one Richard. Get well soon Robin!