Chris Doss wrote:
>
> That's the doctrine of divine judgement and damnation, not personal
> immortality.
Most obviously, yes, but universal salvation and eternal bliss raises its own question about divine 'goodness': If everyone is going to end up in paradise, what in the hell [sic] was the purpose of tortureing billions of people for millions of years, it IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHAT HAPPENS on earth. And universal salvation is equally good to damnation as a foundation for "Kill them all and let God sort it out." It opens up the world envisaged by Shakes'peare's Gloucester, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods, / They kill us for their sport."
Why should not Goneril tear out Gloucester's eyes for sport if both are headed for eternal bliss? And some Buddhist king did create a mountain of skulls -- so even Buddha's non-violence can be rather violent!
Carrol
There was a great deal of controversy in the early Church about
> whether, ultimately, anyone would be damned (cf. Pseudo-Dionysius). There
> was even a controversial thesis that even the Devil would ultimatelt be
> saved.
>
> Chris Doss
> The Russia Journal
> ------------------
>
> Once you introduce the doctrine of personal immortality, there is no
> theoretical limit to horror except a commonsense refusal by believers to
> proceed down the slippery slope. X makes you in danger of hellfire.
> Given that, there is no horror forbidden at the level of theory.
>
> Carrol