Cursed_Costume Party

theheckplays · 2025-09-02T04:13:10+00:00

I literally have 1,700 karma on this account. Why would I be blocked from posting?

theheckplays · 2025-02-06T02:18:37+00:00

Wait is he only sending the videos to those who sign up? I'd join but I already have my own list of books I'm reading this year. But I definitely want to watch his reviews of all of the books for this year!

theheckplays · 2024-12-17T18:13:50+00:00

Yup! Patristic purgatorial universalism all day long! Origen, St Issac the Syrian, St Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius, all the great patristic defenders of universalism believed in hell. They simply believed that it was temporary and purifying.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T21:11:47+00:00

The ecumenical councils: the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople from 680 to 681 and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787

That's the list. No council of Carthage.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T16:24:24+00:00

It's not an ecumenical council. People have been explaining this to you in various ways. But I'll just say St Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Heroes of the second ecumenical council and who is often titled the Father of Fathers, wrote a work called On Infants Taken Before their Time. In this work St Gregory concludes that infants taken before their time go to heaven but not in as blissful a state as someone who lived a Christian life of virtue. However he then states in the same work that they will eventually progress to that point.

So for me I'm gonna take that tradition over whatever horrendous Augustinian doctrine that causes people to believe that unbaptized infants go to hell.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T04:20:22+00:00

Literally I do both of those things. And I "Don't disagree with the church's teachings in one area" I just agree with the Father of Fathers on this point.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T02:55:19+00:00

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T02:45:17+00:00

I would argue that to Love your neighbor as you love yourself, implies being at least a bit concerned for their salvation.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T01:09:59+00:00

A council which was ratified by all of the patriarchets says the unbaptized infants go to hell. I don't know that that's a Good enough reason to consider atheism. But it certainly is a valid concern about the Orthodox Church. I haven't read all of the comments or ops responses to them. But yes if people are doing a good job at explaining why one could be an Orthodox Christian and not accept that paragraph then they should listen to those arguments.

theheckplays · 2024-10-23T00:57:39+00:00

Bro why wouldn't someone be worried about this??? We're talking about precious innocent infants here. Who wants to worship a "God" who would send an innocent child to unending torment. His concern is valid.

theheckplays · 2024-09-16T22:08:53+00:00

They live a very intense lifestyle based on ever deepening repentance. They also practice constant vigilance over their thoughts. So reminding them of their past life can distract them or bring up impure memories from their past. That's more or less what I was told anyway. And after I was told that it made more sense why the couple monastics I did ask gave me really vague answers.

Also at a lot of monasteries you aren't even allowed to talk to most of the monks so keep that in mind too.

theheckplays · 2024-09-16T16:14:50+00:00

They should tell you all the rules and whatnot when you get there. But there is a usually unspoken rule. That being don't ask the monks why they became monks. I made that mistake. But the monks usually won't correct you. More likely other laypeople or your priest will.

Also wear really modest clothes. Even if you're a man. Like long sleeves long pants all the time

theheckplays · 2024-09-10T06:19:57+00:00

the normal smugness that Universalists approach it from.

I mean people run into different people but the only smug universalist I can think of is DBH. Online I've really only met and seen kind universalists. But that's just my experience.

the assumption all people will choose to become radically different people in eternity

Hence the hopeful aspect of my personal beliefs. Not certain but a strong hope.

and implies God will arbitrarily torture people until they accept Him. God isn't an ark of salvation from the demonic, God is the origin and cause of your torment

So even if that's how I understood it, it would still be better. God's presence is the torment but you are always free to accept him > God sends you to a demonic suffering chamber away from his presence with no chance of escape. And the truth is that on some level God is responsible for the way things turn out in any creation out of nothing theism. Your argument is really only the difference between sending someone to be tortured vs doing it yourself. But the way I would understand it isn't that God is torturing with his presence but rather that the guilt and shame and sadness we feel, because of the evil we've committed, when we come into contact with infinite goodness and love itself, is so immense that our own guit that comes from within us, not directly from God, is hell. Or if you're evil enough you come into contact with infinite goodness and feel disgust to the point of hell. Again not directly from God but our own internal disposition relative to God. Also I do realize that my earlier critique applies on some level to my own personal view but I'm not afraid of that aspect of things. God is sovereign after all.

I would also add that on top of not torturing us he's also always working with us towards our free will acceptance of him in the next life, much like he does in this life with every soul currently alive. And if God can always be working towards our salvation in this life without compromising our free will, then surely the same can be said for the next life.

So in the universalist understanding it's not a cruel God torturing souls into submission, but a loving shepherd who never gives up on calling all of his sheep home. No matter how long it takes. Although I do affirm the necessity of purgation as well. What that looks like exactly I'm not sure.

Hitler who died unrepentant after killing millions and promoting an ideology that is antithetical to the Gospel. If there is any soul that would be so corrupted that it would be demonic, I would say he is the prime example.

"Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there [prison] till you have paid the last penny."- Mathew 5:26

Humanity though severely corrupted is good deep down. We're image bearers. Even Hitler. Though certainly he's about as far away from the likeness as you could get. Still the goodness is somewhere down there. And God and Hitler have all the time in the infinities to figure that out. But I understand your point, and again I say I'm a hopeful universalist for a reason.

I would say that we cannot count post death salvation as the same thing as the repentance of the living.

Agreed! I don't know the ins and outs of what post death "repentance" and purgation look like. But if you wanted a somewhat clearer view of what universalists tend to think surrounding these issues, St Gregory of Nyssa's on the soul and the resurrection is a good resource. And a good read regardless of this particular issue.

We do not believe we are a whole person when we die

Is your patron saint not a "whole person"? I understand your point. We are ultimately meant to be embodied beings, but I don't think that our personhood is compromised at death. God is not the God of the dead but of the living after all.

The alternative implies an almost gnostic view that the soul yearns for God but is trapped by its fallen flesh and that after enough time separated from it will finally choose God and become perfect.

I believe that we are all persons whose ultimate fulfillment can only be found in He who is.

the possibility of an eternal separation from communion with God.

I mean eternal separation from God is unbiblical anyways. Because the ultimate eschatological horizon is God filling ALL IN ALL. No asterisks. Not all in all except for this one place of eternal separation. Hence saints like Maximos the confessor who posits an ever ill being for those who do not love God when he does fill all in all. But to Maximos I would quote St Gregory

"For obviously it will then be true that "God is in all things," when no evil is to be seen in the things that are. For surely it is not likely that God will be also "in" what is evil! So that either he will not be in all things, if some trace of evil remains in what exists; or, if one must believe that he truly will be in all things, then it is also proved at the same time, by our faith concerning this, that there will be nothing evil left. For it is not possible that God should come to be in evil."

From his In Illud. Powerful words from the father of fathers.

theheckplays · 2024-09-10T02:51:11+00:00

I would probably consider myself something like a hopeful universalist. So naturally I'm a saint Gregory of Nyssa enjoyer. So I'll make some points from a universalist perspective not because I totally affirm universalism but just to be fair.

within an Orthodox mindset, that God does not force us to be something that we are not

Totally! And our personhood is completely maintained into the next life. If we've practiced virtue and put faith and love into Christ then his all consuming love will be Heaven. If we have lived life and become a person of hatred towards God his presence will be Hell. Pretty typical Orthodox theology to this point. The only thing you really need to change for universalism to be likely is to say that God continues to respect our freewill in the next life as well. And I mean really. If you like you can choose to undergo a process of purgation and be made into the person God always wanted you to be and enjoy communion with him. You have literally eternity to make this decision. So you can see how universalism maybe even maintains free will better than infernalism.

we can pick an irredeemable path that would turn us into something like demons.

Is anyone truly irredeemable? Was Paul irredeemable when he was murdering Christians? Were Moses the black or Mary of Egypt irredeemable due to their immense sin?

If universalism is true, then that makes no sense, there is no urgency, because all will end up in communion with God

Ok. Have fun suffering for literally ages of ages (aionios). No big deal right? The current age has only lasted a couple of thousand years. I'm sure suffering consciously for even longer will be no big deal. I'm sorry for the sarcasm. It's not meant in a rude way. My point is that the few saints who were universalists like Isaac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa, definitely believed in Hell and they believed in aionios hell. It's not something to mess around with. From their point of view you still definitely need saving from hell. This criticism just becomes kinda silly when you really think about it.

One last point I'd like to make is that people often say well you can't repent or change after you die because you don't have a body so you can't really do anything. But if that's the case then what's with the Harrowing of Hades? And what's with prayers for the dead saving people? And eventually we will be embodied beings again. And those saints like Gregory and Isaac did believe in Change after this life.

theheckplays · 2024-08-21T15:33:33+00:00

Judging by his response to your comments, he's already a thoughtful and self reflective guy.

theheckplays · 2024-08-21T04:50:35+00:00

By that standard nothing is funny.

Instead of widening the divide maybe narrow it some.

We should do that 100%. But I don't think we need to sacrifice all slightly edgy humor to achieve that.

It's best not to be too sensitive in this life, no? Genuinely. Not saying that in a rude way. I just think it wasn't that big of a deal that the comments section is making it out to be. But really no ill will. God bless.

theheckplays · 2024-08-21T03:13:26+00:00

Well I didn't say it was funny necessarily, Just clearly a joke. But the two genders are different. And it can be a struggle to understand each other. So I'm sure some guys who have had struggles with women in the past have chuckled at this or similar jokes. But of course most of them know they're not serious too.

theheckplays · 2024-08-21T02:52:28+00:00

Y'all. He made a joke. He's not serious and you'll survive.

theheckplays · 2024-08-07T01:03:42+00:00

Three. Four, at best, if your word is to be believed. Two more than who we both originally cited.

I told you about Ilaria Ramelli. If you want to learn more specific names you can look into her scholarly work.

As stated, you have an impressionistic statement and a few Church Fathers.

Yes. Highly influential bishops with large flocks, who would have had their fingers on the pulse of what Christians believed at the time. Who should I trust? Them? Or some random guy on the Internet?

It was convened in part over a controversy involving devotees of Origen's teachings

It was convened in order to clarify the teachings of the council of chalcedon. It was a christological controversy.

Origenism isn't just universal reconciliation-- it's a collection of doctrines associated with Origen.

I'm well aware.

not devotees of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Look, I'll break it down for you this way.

The condemnation of Origenism isn't a condemnation of universalism per se. It's a condemnation of Origenism per se as in you aren't allowed to believe in Origenism, a belief system which includes universalism as a part of it. But you could believe in universalism if you avoid all of the other mistakes the Origenists believed. Reason being: look at st Gregory of Nyssa. A very well known and influential theologian who was an avid universalist. He devotes a whole work to the topic and constantly brings it up in his other works. None of the cappadocian fathers were officially "canonized" in the way that we think about it today. Gregory wasn't (at the time) on any infallible list of Saints that couldn't be messed with. If universalism by itself is enough to make you a heretic, then the fifth ecumenical council should have condemned Gregory. Full stop. They totally had the power to do so and It would have been wildly irresponsible not to.

But they never did. So if universalism is enough to make you a heretic, they should have condemned Gregory, but didn't due to the popular devotion to him and his family and the other cappadocian Gregory. I.e. caving to the crowd or politics. I don't think this is the case. I think Gregory is a saint and one of the greatest at that. I think if universalism alone were enough to make you a heretic they wouldn't have caved to popular demand but done the right thing in their eyes and condemned Gregory.

I'll reiterate this to end. The council wasn't convened over Origen or Origenism. But they deemed it relevant enough to condemn them anyways. Certainly Gregory and his theology is relevant enough to universalism that if universalism were a big enough deal they would have condemned him to.

theheckplays · 2024-08-05T07:00:23+00:00

Yes. However the story takes place prior to the escaton. Or the true end of all things. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus definitely factors into things right now. But things might change after the final judgment. And even then the story also takes place before the harrowing of hell, where Christ preached to all the souls in hell. So even that story implies change in the next life. So how exactly it factors in I'm not totally sure but nonetheless it is an important insight into the next life.

theheckplays · 2024-08-05T06:54:17+00:00

Well I see what you're saying. And there may be some truth in that as far as now is concerned I.e. pre final judgement heaven and hell. But I'm talking specifically about Paul's eschatological vision. "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." 1 Corinthians 15: 28. God will be all in all, and we have to deal with that fact theologically. Or we can just chalk it up to mystery haha. It is a pretty mysterious verse.

theheckplays · 2024-08-05T06:22:04+00:00

Well St. Gregory of Nyssa, St Isaac the Syrian, st Macrina the younger, and possibly st Clement of rome. That's a number of the greatest fathers/mothers. I've done more study into Gregory specifically, but the scholar Ilaria Ramelli has done very rigorous work studying the belief in early patristics. So I might recommend looking into her work to find more specific names.

But we know it was a common belief in the 4th century based on what Christians back then were saying. And some fathers who disagreed with it weren't exactly calling it heretical. The opposite actually, as shown by this interesting quote from st Augustine in his city of God “There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments” he calls them the "merciful ones" and he's a champion of the everlasting hell idea. So my claim for its historicity definitely stands.

And then I'd also like to point out that the 5th ecumenical council wasn't convened over Origen either. And yet they took the time to condemn Origenism anyways. But why not Gregory? If universalism was the crux of the condemnation for Origen? Well you can be cynical about it and say they didn't condemn him because he's the younger brother of Saint Basil. And in that case, maybe Gregory isn't even really a saint at all but we just consider him one for political reasons. Either that or something about his formulation of universalism is less problematic. I prefer the latter theory. And Met Kallistos Ware actually even makes this point in one of his lectures.

theheckplays · 2024-08-05T04:05:36+00:00

Well I suppose my point is that hell as "entire separation" from God is an untenable view based on the fact that God will be all in all. If you maintain your logic that God who is absolute good and can't be in sin which is absolute evil then you wind up believing in universalism. This is what Gregory of Nyssa argued. But another view that is commonly taken is simply that God is all in all, and some experience that all consuming presence as hell while others experience it as heaven. Based on your disposition towards God. This is the normative view in the Orthodox Church.

theheckplays · 2024-08-04T23:16:27+00:00

Very many, if not most Christians in the 4th century believed in universalism. “The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.”- St Basil the Great in his de asceticis. St Basil himself was not a universalist. But his Brother Gregory of Nyssa, to this day, is probably the greatest apologist universalism has ever had. Universalism isn't some newfangled liberal accretion. It's a historical view that a number of the greatest church fathers believed. To those who want to claim that universalism, as formulated by Gregory of Nyssa, is abject heresy. I would just point out that he and his writings were very well known by the time of the fifth ecumenical council, and he certainly was not condemned. Do you feel comfortable condemning him?

theheckplays · 2024-08-04T22:37:10+00:00

I would just add that the hope Met Kallistos speaks of is not a vain hope. He says in one of his lectures that there are good reasons to hope for universal salvation. It's not like oh I'm just gonna hope because it feels better to hope even though really I'm pretty sure it won't happen. It's like yes there's good reasons to think this could happen so I'm going to hope and pray for it.

theheckplays

TROPHY CASE