Proving Hell and philosophy of it.

[Link]

Let me take a guess, what @Link is thinking.

Maybe killing Ghasim Soleimani, who Amercans killed, and many people became happy.

I became Muslim before then. But nice guess, but Qasim Soleimani just has made me more firm in this regard if anything else. People created ISIS, pretend they fight them, and the person who protects the people and fights the wicked people, is deemed a terrorist.

This is what happens, when desires are followed for knowledge, good and evil are equated.

 

[Galateasdream]

@Link
Which philosophical (not theological) works on hell helped inform your view?

I haven't read many philosophical works on hell, most seem to be theological. The only ones that spring instantly to mind are Talbott and Kronen & Reitan.

 

[Link]

I look forward to your demonstration that we choose our beliefs.

I will do this, I've done it before on Atheistforums.org, and am already aware of counter arguments and response to that, and counter arguments. This is not something new I've heard.

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe not right now, but sometimes I get sexual fantasies, and wish to join a left handed spirituality and am willing to even accuse the Mahdi and his miracles as to be sorcery if he comes.

Huh. Almost sounds like something you don't choose.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Clarity and unclearness is relative. Are they unclear to me? No.

They are clear. They maybe unclear to you, but that's not my problem. I'm not discussing the textual basis for hell, I'm discussing the philosophy of it.

But idea of hell is from Holy Texts and Prophets. It is not mine or your idea, thus, why not see what the Holy Text, and prophets said about it?

The clarity or clarity of text is debatable. Who decides if a verse is clear or unclear? You? Me? No! God, and those who are well grounded in knowledge, such as Prophets and infallible imams. So, why not see how they interpreted these, or what hints they gave us.

 

[Link]

Huh. Almost sounds like something you don't choose.

It's a choice, I'm not married, and it's hard to keep my desires and dragons or beasts in this regard, from rebelling against me, but I'm so far keeping this inclination from happening.

No one said the battle to choose truth over falsehood and God's light over low desires is easy. No one is saying believe in the hidden world is easy as opposed to believing in a material world.

This is not what I mean. But we will talk about this more in the other thread.

 

[Link]

But idea of hell is from Holy Texts and Prophets. It is not mine or your idea, thus, why not see what the Holy Text, and prophets said about it?

The clarity or clarity of text is debatable. Who decides if a verse is clear or unclear? You? Me? No! God, and those who are well grounded in knowledge, such as Prophets and infallible imams. So, why not see how they interpreted these, or what hints they gave us.

That's a different topic, you can create a thread about it. I'm talking about philosophy of it, not the textual basis for it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That's a different topic, you can create a thread about it. I'm talking about philosophy of it, not the textual basis for it.

The philosophy of it is not explained in holy books?
You seem to assume Allah is the true God, who created a Hell, but you prefer to use your own philosophy about hell, instead of philosophy of Allah about hell. Why is that? Philosophy of Allah is not good enough?

 

[Link]

The philosophy of it is not explained in holy books?
You seem to assume Allah is the true God, who created a Hell, but you prefer to use your own philosophy about hell, instead of philosophy of Allah about hell. Why is that? Philosophy of Allah is not good enough?

This is not about textual debate, I believe the philosophy I'm proposing is in Quran. But we aren't trying to prove it because Quran says this, it happens to be true. Same way, I don't believe in Messengers simply because Quran says so.

I'm talking about the belief and philosophy standing on it's own. Nor is the topic about how to interpret Quran or whether the verses about hell are clear or not or what's their true interpretation. It's not that your topic is not good, it's just, highly irrelevant at this moment because I'm not proving it on textual basis.

I do believe the philosophy of it is in Quran but this is not about being deriving this philosophy from God, it's about the philosophy paraphrased in my own words. The Quran proves it more eloquently and with more topics, and with a better way.

 

[Link]

@Link
Which philosophical (not theological) works on hell helped inform your view?

I haven't read many philosophical works on hell, most seem to be theological. The only ones that spring instantly to mind are Talbott and Kronen & Reitan.

It was just reflections on Quran mainly at a time where I had 28 problems with Quran then 42, then I started solving them one by one. But despite solving them all, I didn't believe in Islam for two years, simply on this issue. I believed belief in hell was irrational and that a God that forgives evil people and doesn't punish them is better then a God that punishes.

With two years of reflecting on this, after one year in which I solved the 42 rational problems (contradictions etc) I created in my head and mainly due to not understanding how language works, it took me two years to reflect over this issue. This is not an easy issue, which is perhaps why the subject is repeated over and over again, so as to warn yes, but Quran says disbelievers in general won't believe if you warn them anyways nor fear in this respect, so to me, it's more about proving it although warning them is part of it, it's not the main reason it's repeated with different subjects.

I had to find my sense of vengeance first, and it's not easy to do so. Mental clarity with regards to morals is usually not easy, let alone theology, let alone morals related to theology.

I believed for years that vengeance and belief in hell was wrong in this respect.

 

[Link]

Five years, I was non-Muslim, solved all my problems, but it was just this belief in hell, that prevented me for two years. I've reflected over this issue for a long time. And discussed as well with others, online and in person.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I became Muslim before then. But nice guess, but Qasim Soleimani just has made me more firm in this regard if anything else. People created ISIS, pretend they fight them, and the person who protects the people and fights the wicked people, is deemed a terrorist.

This is what happens, when desires are followed for knowledge, good and evil are equated.

Well, I am not interested in political issues, such as ISIS, soleumani, etc.
But, people like Soleimani, are products of the Iranian Islamic Government.
And creating an Islamic governemt is not compatible with Islam, because such a Right and Resposibility is only for the Qaim. In many hadithes, the shia imams said to muslims, sit in their home and wait for the Qaim. They said do not rise before the Qaim.

 

[Link]

Well, I am not interested in political issues, such as ISIS, soleumani, etc.
But, people like Soleimani, are products of the Iranian Ismaic Government.
And creating an Islamic governemt is not compatible with Islam, because such a Right and Resposibility is only for the Qaim. In many hadithes, the shia imams said to muslims, sit in their home and wait for the Qaim. They said do not rise before the qaim.

Government in general is disbelief to believe in without God's King. I'm a democratic anarchist in ghayba. But your sit in your home and wait for Qaim have been explained hadiths. It didn't mean what you say and we have other hadiths that explain this and contextualize it.

Republics don't work but Usoolis have to have that. If Iranians were Akhbaris, as I am, we would form a democratic anarchy. But if they believe in Taqlid, then republic is the only democracy they know.

Anyways, we are straying off-topic.

 

[Galateasdream]

@Link
Do you not think it may be wise to consider the works of professional philosophers in this regard before becoming so confident in your views?

 

[Link]

@Link
Do you not think it may be wise to consider the works of professional philosophers in this regard before becoming so confident in your views?

To be honest, I only know of works to refute literal interpretation or it lasting forever. The latter, it not lasting forever, there are many works. It's lopsided in this respect.

 

[Link]

I've read some of those works.

 

[Galateasdream]

I've read some of those works.

What works written by professional philosophers have you read concerning hell (whether for or against)?

 

[Link]

What works written by professional philosophers have you read concerning hell (whether for or against)?

I forget the exact title, but Islamic one that I read a few times over "The Triumph of Reason over Textual Basis: God's Compassion in Mulla Sadra works" Something like that. It goes to explain reasoning of famous philosophers of Islam and why they rejected the forever nature of hell despite the textual basis where it appears to be forever.

 

[Link]

I also read what Ibn Arabi and other philosophers say about it of the Sufi type. They usually believe it's temporal, and that everyone will enter God's mercy after (Sufi and Irfani type Muslims).

 

[Galateasdream]

I forget the exact title, but Islamic one that I read a few times over "The Triumph of Reason over Textual Basis: God's Compassion in Mulla Sadra works" Something like that. It goes to explain reasoning of famous philosophers of Islam and why they rejected the forever nature of hell despite the textual basis where it appears to be forever.

Maybe a good way to present your case for ECT would be to engage with their key arguments one at a time, each with a separate thread. It would certainly be easier for others to follow and engage with, rather than putting up very long and dense posts somewhat altogether.

Pick what you think was their strongest philosophical (not textual or theological) argument against hell, précis it, then critique it.