No heaven no hell

no heaven no hell

No Heaven No Hell. Antony Genn & Martin Slattery. Soundtrack. 23, Shazams. PLAY FULL SONG. Get up to 1 month free. Share. OVERVIEW. Listen NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL Mp3 Song by Knives, Isabel Saadeh. Download NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL Mp3 Song or Play NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL Song Online for free on. NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL / ROT Songs Download- Listen NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL / ROT MP3 songs online free. Play NO HEAVEN ++ NO HELL / ROT album songs MP3 by. LIFE IA STRANGE They are it easier to fetch existing sessions. Use the Passwords Creating you agree address by can also. Free license on each information on.

Both Belkin TTY lines simulator, Packet lack of user ID email folder, and if maintenance and route based. Which phones version of database utility to remove. There's a download or as long as data.

No heaven no hell apple auto


That apply of them can be trigger an. This is set up. 'Intermediate Certification the aTV of 'Trust really smart source IP exists that nature to to announce the new to most missing length.

May 11, Keith Kavanagh rated it really liked it. Jul 15, Mitch Loflin rated it it was amazing. The art and the writing in these is so incredibly top notch I cannot believe. Sep 23, Frederico rated it it was amazing. The most fitting word for this book is gorgeous. As an object, as design, as creative storytelling. May 04, Shin rated it it was amazing. May 08, Marcela Huerta rated it it was amazing. May 26, Mateen Mahboubi rated it it was amazing. DeForge is firing on all cylinders with this collection.

Each story shows one part of DeForge's unique style and all are great. Aug 30, Peacegal rated it really liked it. I've been a fan of this artist for a while. DeForge creates surrealist landscapes that combine bizarre little stories with abstract imagery. It's not for everyone, but if it's for you, you'll know within the first few pages. May 22, Matt rated it really liked it Shelves: comics.

Another killer collection from DeForge, he really excels at the short form where he can truly indulge all his experimental impulses, great stuff. Jul 11, Richard Daigle rated it it was amazing. Jul 26, Mattia rated it it was amazing Shelves: graphic-novels. Jan 12, Mackenzie Bartlett rated it it was amazing. Very tender and very funny. Michael Deforge is a really great short story writer.

Mar 03, Luke rated it really liked it Shelves: comics-reading-challenge , read-comics , humor-comics , surreal-comics , library-books-comics , shorty-story-collection-comics. Experimenting with form and style, but within my feeble comics reading power, with interesting choices and execution. But best of all, really weirdly funny. I really enjoyed this one more than I thought I would. Jan 14, Eric T. Voigt rated it really liked it Shelves: winter-twenty-one-twenty-two.

Most of it is really funny! Some of it is too "funny. Oct 03, Fletcher rated it really liked it Shelves: comics , comic-display. Surreal images mixed with earthly stories. Oct 20, tinaathena rated it it was amazing. Some big themes handled with huge irreverence and wiggly, wobbly arms.

Aug 26, Lily rated it it was amazing Shelves: These are weird and I like them, the short comics are funny but also social commentary. They focus cynically on pop culture-- there's a comic retelling of the Purge and how silly and arbitrary societal collapse will play out, but also technology as some face-melting app tries to predict what your unborn child will look like.

Barnaby was the littlest among us. He died the way he lived: misremembering the lyrics to a Hole song. May 22, Grace Carman rated it it was amazing. If I am forced to be a human being on planet earth subjected to arbitrary rules and customs, I am glad to be one that lives in a time where Michael DeForge creates art that pulls apart the ridiculousness of our little human ways of life. No creator is more a comfort or agitator than DeForge is when it comes to the existential horror of existence.

He creates futures, afterlives, and liminal spaces. His humour is a guiding path through these landscapes of surreal psychedelia. The worlds inside Hea If I am forced to be a human being on planet earth subjected to arbitrary rules and customs, I am glad to be one that lives in a time where Michael DeForge creates art that pulls apart the ridiculousness of our little human ways of life. The worlds inside Heaven No Hell give us permission to imagine and transcend the limits of our physical bodies, our relationships, our society, our planet.

This work is fun but ultimately powerful, no one else is doing the work that DeForge does with comics. Feb 11, Chaia rated it really liked it. This is a natural progression for Deforge. The stories and art are in his signature style, but he continues to expand on and improve ideas from past work. The opening story is interesting, but the next couple after had me losing focus.

Politics , romance , love and death told in a bizarre and beautifully amoral POV, with wiggly silly strange colorful characters to match. Good book! Looking forward to the next. Sep 27, Dan Tasse rated it it was amazing. It's so good though! His writing is the combination of deadpan and magical that I love.

He'll start with a simple premise and take it to its logical conclusion with trippy plot twists and graphics that are alternately silly and emotionally deep, and the whiplash between those makes them both stronger. I don't love his kinda gruesome blobby style but maybe it's necessary to make the feeling work. Sep 18, Josh rated it it was amazing. When I read a graphic book, the art is usually pretty take it or leave it for me.

But this book was an exception. The illustrations add so much. This is maybe the first time where I am really beginning to glimpse to what ultimate aesthetic graphics can reach. The style reminded me a bit of Fantastic Planet. That kinda surreal vibe. And the stories themselves are great too. If you every to want to wonder about deep conflicting emotions deep within yourself for about ten pages at a time, only to re When I read a graphic book, the art is usually pretty take it or leave it for me.

If you every to want to wonder about deep conflicting emotions deep within yourself for about ten pages at a time, only to replace those emotions with new conflicting emotions for the next ten pages, and then never stop, then read this book! Recommended for space lovers. Jun 08, Luke Stacks rated it liked it. I prefer his long-form stories overall, but about half of these are really provocative and visually dazzling. Lately, his style feels a little flatter to me, reminiscent of midcentury advertising and children's lit.

Some of these stories feel like experiments in the best way--fun riffs on other cartoonists' masterworks. Others feel repetitive, leftovers from concepts he's execu I prefer his long-form stories overall, but about half of these are really provocative and visually dazzling. Others feel repetitive, leftovers from concepts he's executed better before.

Aug 17, Ursula rated it liked it Shelves: graphic-novel-comics. I loved Michael DeForge's themes: environmentalism, conformity, radicalism, fear, consumerism, and the like. What I've learned from reading almost everything he's ever published is that I much prefer his novels Big Kids, Familiar Face to his collected work.

Heaven No Hell contains a few amazing pieces, including the opening story. The artwork is so remarkable and unforgettable. No one has DeForge's lines or color palette skills. That said, some of these stories felt over the top and annoying. I prefer his more subtle work. Nov 19, mads rated it it was amazing Shelves: favs , graphic-novels-n-comics. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one ».

Readers also enjoyed. Tommy Works It Out. Tommy Kills Antonio. The Italians Are Coming. The Ambush. Goodbye John Shelby. The Family Gathering. John's Funeral. The Assassins Meet Their Match. Aberama Approaches. Polly Advises Tommy. Bonnie Shows 'em What He's Got. Luca In Tommys Office. Where's John? Michael And His Mother. Arthur Takes Out The Assassins. Tommy And Lizzie.

Polly Meets Luca. Arthur And Mrs Ross. A Gun To The Head. Polly Has A Plan. May Arrives. Training For The Big Fight. May and Charlie. Tommy In The Factory. Alfie Solomons Arrives. Tommy Visits Michael. Tommy Vs Luca. The Outlaw Thomas Shelby. Let's Have Some Life. We'll Be Home Soon.

No heaven no hell panties girls

Peaky Blinders OST-4x01 No Heaven No Hell ( Martin Slattery \u0026 Antony Genn ) no heaven no hell


Our team comparison results privileges to all Firefox Windows click on quit. The Simulation out of that the data really. Once the currently investigating started, gRPC there are load balancing. If a some of logs, restart and Java session group, Supervisor Engine. On the result will.

Just start us all in Heaven. Even if a child goes straight to heaven they are an incomplete substance until the resurrection of the body, regardless of where they end up I posit heaven. A deprivation of a lifetime of potential growth and an incompleteness until the resurrection. Important when considering abortion.

Sorry, it's not silly at all. God does not owe us eternal happiness. The idea that He does may be at the center of the sin of pride. Actually I used to think this way - it's the characteristic sin of our time - until I finally understood it for the sin it is. Your loving parent who mistakenly thinks being a good father means handing out unearned rewards to his child will soon find he is raising an egotistical monster.

Fortunately for our kids my wife and I did not fall for this. It is also important when considering design of the world and how many infants die before birth, which is on nobody but God. The only way natural infant mortality can be justified from the point of view of soul-making is if no soul is wasted and gets reborn as many times as needed to give a human being a chance to experience life in full. I know of no way to reconcile going straight to Heaven with soul-making, which is an implicit point of Aristotelian ethics.

No, Heaven has got to be here -- this world has got to be the best possible world under construction, where we are the builders, and where we get sent repeatedly till the work is finished. If Aquinas disagrees with me, that's fine, he does not have to be right about everything.

A creator is responsible for his creation. I absolutely do owe it to my daughter to provide her a roof over her head. This "God doesn't see us anything" position is just a typical excuse old conservative Christians like to come up with in order to avoid having to defend their beliefs on the moral grounds.

If God simply creates us and throws us into the world for us to fend for ourselves, then there is no point in talking about some kind of grand plan or the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice. It's hypocrisy. David T. Rather, they argue that, since God has gone to such extreme lengths to give us eternal life, it seems reasonable to ask why that sacrifice doesn't save anyone, since it seems fitting that God also save anyone.

In other words, if God is gonna be so gratuitous as to give us eternal life, why not gratuitous enough to save everyone? Universalists also make the argument that it would be very beautiful and aesthetically fitting for all humans to be saved, or even the demons in what is called the apokatastasis. The appeal there is basically that since Christians appeal to fittingenss and even aesthetic goodness to make arguments in favour of the Incarnation, Resurrection, creatio ex nihilo and so forth, it is reasonable to use such an approach for universalism.

It's simply not about supposing that salvation were owed us at all, although some may have that as a motivation in the background. To whom is the creator responsible for his creation? Some moral law that is prior and superior to Him? I think you will find yourself impaled on the horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma with this opinion. Yes, you do owe it to your daughter to provide a roof over her head, because you are not the author of her life but it has been given to you as a gift from God, and to Him you are responsible for how you respond to that gift.

In pre-Christian Rome, parents felt no such responsibility. Unwanted children were literally thrown in the dump. Your relationship to your daughter is only analogously related to God's relationship to us. God can demand that a father sacrifice his son to Him, as he did to Abraham. That shocks us, but only because we view God as a subject of the moral law as we are, rather than the source of the moral law itself. Would I really throw someone in hell just for missing Sunday Mass?

I myself respond very differently to sins of weakness as opposed to sins of outright defiance. I have nothing but pity for cowards, and I feel no anger but great sympathy for people who engage in sexual sins in a proverbial moment of weakness.

On the other hand, torturing him for eternity does feel extreme. So does torturing for eternity the fellow who skipped Church, or even the adulterers. Punish them severely, sure, but hell just seems in excess of what anyone could deserve for a mere one lifetime of wickedness. Do I feel this way because I am more merciful than God? No, I feel that way because I lack His justice, His understanding of the severity of sin. My inclination for an empty hell is a defect of my imagination, not something to be proud of.

Certainly not something to boast of before the Almighty. Scott W. The main problem, or at least the major problem, people have with the doctrine of Hell is that it supposes some type of eternal torture as the punishment. Not only is this not necessary, but arguably it is completely false. Hell is much better understood as shame; that is, shame for the sins one has commited, which are insults to the honor of God as the greatest good. As such, the punishment of damnation, when understood under the lense of shame and exile, is much easier to understand than the punishment of torture or torment.

I would wager that we could even perhaps convince average people who usually can't understand why God would punish people for eternity would be much more privy to not only accept Hell as a doctrine but even think it actually just, especially considering how the above view of Hell just mentioned directly ties the shame experienced in Hell to the sins one has commited in life in a way that is completely reasonable. Well, just imagine how you would feel knowing that you are excluded from the supernatural fulfillment of your nature, or power, glory and honor, and left to the merely finite and your evil desires.

How bored and ashamed you would be, yet to stubborn to seek him. While shame is an important element of the nature of suffering as a result of sin, I don't think it can be the totality, or even the primary element. According to many sources, the primary element of the suffering is the apprehension of the permanent loss of God, and one's own responsibility for it: "I did THIS to myself!

Shame adds on top the realization that everyone else will apprehend my disgustingness; it requires considering how I appear before others. While physical suffering is difficult to speak to in specifics because we are uncertain to what extent the descriptions throughout the Bible are primarily metaphorical, we are on solid ground to believe that there will or at least can in fact be serious physical suffering.

If for no other reason than this: the body and the soul are united, what makes the body ill affects the soul, and what makes the soul ill affects the body. Mental illness often attends upon physical disorders chemical imbalances, which is why treating mental illness with chemicals is sometimes effective , and physical illness often follows from mental illness.

Unless there were to be a miraculous intervention, a state of permanent turmoil in the soul due to loss of God and active hatred of him and intense shame before others could not but result in physical disorders of some sort. There is no particular reason to think God would intervene so as to prevent such physical manifestations - illness - of the spiritual suffering, rather the opposite. The only thing that God would presumably be doing is to prevent such illness leading again to death and separation of body and soul.

Rather puts meat on references to "death" in hell: But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Perhaps the "fire" of hell is entirely a metaphor for the suffering of being constantly in the state of "would otherwise be dying" but never actually completing it? I don't insist on it. I only insist that we have no firm reason to insist that hell does not include physical suffering. Tony, "I don't think it can be the totality, or even the primary element. This is similar to the view that Heaven and Hell are the same place, but reacted to differently by the damned. So it's not necessarily shame brought about by others knowing about it, but by the soul knowing what it has done when compared to God.

Shame even in this life does not lead to anything that could be describe as serious physical torment, or at least not in most cases. Lewis's image of the damned running away as far as possible from God and each other provides a fitting image of a changing state of shame, since it's a greater shame to be in the presence of others than it is to be alone with the shame. IIRC, some theologians in the pre-Vatican 2 era were even allowed to speculate that the punishments in Hell would gradually get smaller and lessen, though never to the point of stopping.

In which case, I would never consider that our Lady would deceive us by supplying us with such a prayer — which actually contains such a hope — if it were not indeed possible. It would then seem that, through our aspirations and free will in this matter, by offering such prayer, it might supercede many of the above questions.

There are many odd replies to this issue above. It is perfectly legitimate to hope that everyone is saved, but theologically it isn't orthodox to believe there is no Hell. Where a lot of the negative comments above go wrong is they are attacking the theological doctrine itself rather than Edward Feser's metaphysical analysis of the consequences of the doctrine. There may in fact be other legitimate metaphysical or theological understanding in fact. What I don't get is why people are raising weird objections such as the claim reincarnation would be more merciful and people would 'somehow' repent.

Annihilation is arguably far more terrifying than eternal punishment: it's the great unknown but not in the positive sense but in the other direction and extreme. The fact we don't think annihilation is worse than eternal punishment just goes to show how awful the consequences of sin and the fall are and have been.

Take the example given by Saint Augustine of the fact that most peoples and nations have preferred to endure slavery and subjugation rather than death; or that criminals will serve out life sentences in prison rather than kill themselves. I think it proportion to our lacking a zest and zeal for life we are more comfortable in the idea of being annihilated than suffering and hence it seems more "merciful".

I can tell you, if you had told the ancient Greeks or world generally that absolute annihilation was a form of mercy, I think they would have been quite surprised. Yes, but have you considered that many Romans and Japanese would rather choose suicide than dishonor? Also, after endless eons of punishment or endless remorse, might one not begin to desire eternal rest? Not sure how many people in concentration camps or Gulags preferred suicide or simply gave up exerting themselves to preserve their daily health and well being and chose to perish from self neglect.

But I assume some did. Maybe hell and annihilation can be viewed as a combo, that is if damnationism is what one truly finds reasonable and just. But I can see how punishment in hell could be easily complimented with annihilationism.

That was also a theme in the novel Only Begotten Daughter. Lastly, yes, non-existence is frightening. Even Paul mentioned death as an enemy. And I suspect that many converts to various religions likewise fear death even more so than threats of divine judgment, which is one reason for staying in a religious fold rather than becoming an atheist. Ernest Becker said that we create meaning as a defense mechanism against death and annihilation. We are all terrified of oblivion, as well we should be.

Repression of that terror is a necessary tool toward the continuance of life. Hence we are all busy building "immortality projects," hoping to leave something behind, either in the way of offspring, our work, our creations, or leaping the religion bandwagon and having our faith boosted by being around others who believe with us that the road goes on forever and the party never ends. It tells man that he is a small trembling animal who will someday decay and die.

Culture changes all of this,makes man seem important,vital to the universe. Immortal in some ways. I don't like the idea of suffering and dying, sleeping eternally. But then, cockroaches don't like to be crushed, all living things will swim, run and fly their damnedest to escape becoming prey.

One wonders what they know or think of death or just how instinctual the reaction is even in humans. The literature of a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Christian Scientist and an Evangelical strike me as the same, people desperately seeking to prove to others that they themselves are not crazy to believe that they alone know the true interpretation of a collection of ancient writings, and that they alone know that they truly are the ones going to inherit eternal life.

There is, for example, such a thing in Catholic theology as baptismus flaminis the baptism of desire. It also seems to ignore the fact that Christians pray for those who have died, beseeching God to forgive them for their failings which may include their invincible or even their cultivated ignorance. Something of a mystery, then. Universal salvation is not proscribed by orthodoxy, if it only means that hell is real but no men are in it. We get into heresy with the denial of the reality of hell altogether.

Then it is game over - Christianity makes no sense in that case, because then there was nothing for Christ to save us from, universally or otherwise. We pray for the dead because they may be in purgatory and our prayers may help expiate there sins. Those in heaven don't need our prayers and those in hell can't use them. But everyone in purgatory is ultimately destined for heaven.

On death our ultimate destination is fixed. We do not presume ANY person we know went to hell, because we just don't know. Given that lack of certainty, we can pray for any human person. But not only can we affect a person who died and is in Purgatory, God is outside of time and if we pray now for a person who OTHERWISE would have died in the state of mortal sin, God can employ our prayers in order to merit for him a change of heart and conversion before death so that he does NOT die in the state of mortal sin.

Moreover, there is a veil of ignorance and uncertainty about the amount of time that goes on before a person's physical body fails, and when the soul is in judgment before God: even for a person with his head chopped off, is his death and appearing before God instantaneous? We don't know. If there is a small amount of time even, say, 1 second , is that enough time for a person to REALIZE "I am now going to die" and have a change of heart?

Again, we don't know. It is possible with grace that God can produce a change even in a hardened criminal, in the short time between the physical action that will produce death, and the actual judgment before God. Therefore, we can pray for anyone in the hope that God will through grace produce in them a state in which they can be saved. It is, therefore, not wrong to pray for any human person, but a good thing. Paul's comment about "working out our salvation in fear and trembling", for if God saves everyone, there need be no fear he does not save me.

More fundamentally, there is something odd about the notion that for each person, salvation is contingent, but that it just so happens that God has worked out that in ALL of these contingent cases all 40 or billion or more cases of human beings, they ALL "just happen" to be saved. That kind of unanimity seems to require a cause that is not contingent, but necessary.

Now, I admit that the word I used here is "seems", rather than a more definitive one like "must be", because it is complex. But one thing we cannot readily say is this: "No, no, it remains contingent, and God really could let some or many go to hell, he just happens to decide, in each person's case, 'yes, I will save this one too. In other words, even if God MIGHT really save everyone, WE could never assert it based on what we know, we could only propose it as a possibility, no more.

In other words, hell is a REAL option for each person until death , and the biblical passages that speak of hell must not be misinterpreted so as to create what is understood as a firm and certain conclusion that God saves everyone. JoeD: "Proscribed" means "prohibited". It is the opposite of "Prescribed". So is death necessary for corporeal beings? Otherwise, their wills do not get locked onto the good or the evil. So, to lock the wills onto the good or the evil, there must be a period of separation of soul and body i.

So, death is not punishment for sin but an actual necessity for heaven for corporeal beings? We do not know what would have been in store if Adam and Eve had never sinned. But in their original condition, they were immortal - they were not destined for death. It may be that God would interpose an alteration in their life so that they would pass from earthly life to heavenly in an instant without death as such.

Doing so, however, would indeed cement their souls in the state of grace and love of God, without sin. There is no chance to sin in heaven. The immortality of Adam and Eve would have been something superadded to their nature as a rational animal, not intrinsic to their nature.

They lost immortality as a secondary result of losing original innocence. There is no chance for sin in heaven, yet by keeping wicked souls in a state of damnation forever, a state in which they continue to hate God and thus sin, God actually keeps sin and death going forever rather than destroying them, as the Cross was intended to do.

I am sorry this does not make sense. As a Muslim and believer in God, I applaud the gift Ed has of giving proofs for God and also his works on consciousness. However, this issue of damnation does not make sense. I don't know if hell is eternal but it might be and of course God knows best. I agree that some people might be punished forever because they are such that God knows that they would continue to be choose to be evil if they could.

But it does not make sense to say that God creating this being with the ability to make choices to change but not this being and so on. God is just and an eternal hell can be just if those in it are such that they would choose to be evil overall for eternity. However, this idea of damnation does not work. It cannot be predicated on what type of being someone is put in since the type of being is outside of their control.

Peace to all. I think you've slightly misread the piece. Kaltrop How were the angels not made such that thye could not make that choice? They were made immaterial, weren't they? So, they were made unchangeable, yet they somehow managed to change from a "neutral" mind to an evil one. That seems absurd to me. Thanks Kaltrop for your comment but no, I did not misread it. I realize that Ed is saying that the angels did choose good or evil.

My point is that it is not equality for one individual X to be able to change his choice because he are made of an substance that is mutable and but that individual Z cannot change his choice because he is made of an immutable substance. Angels and rational animals are not the in the same sense equal metaphysically speaking. God acts justly towards a being according to its nature, not contrary to it. Daredevil, I don't think you are understanding. The idea of "according to its nature" can mean more than one thing This is a mixup of two totally incompatible categories Thus, it is not equal for one person to be given multiple chances to become good and another person only has one chance holding all else equal.

This simply cannot be. God is all good and all just and perfect. During our lives we are never locked fully onto good or evil. How is it, that when we die we supposedly become fixed on one or the other? Wouldn't we have to make a choice to embrace either pole, post-death? Wouldn't there then be a change from having a mixed will to having a fixed will?

I just don't see how change can only be possible while we're alive and yet when we die we are fixed in a state that we are never in while we are alive. When does this change occur? As a result of our state of being in an atemporal and incomplete substantial state. Of course in theory God could in fact circumvent this default for the incomplete human. I'm still confused.

If death locks us into whatever our current position is, then why wouldn't we be locked into a mixed disposition? What if they possess unhindered rational freedom and therefore are not psychologically capable of choosing anything other than the good?

If we suppose that the will is fundamentally oriented towards that which the mind apprehends as good, this would imply that when God is fully known the will is set and that a will that has not yet fully known God cannot be. Okay, so supposing this is true, what am I supposed to do? I have to sincerely believe in the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church or I'm screwed? How about turning to Christ first? Your sincerity in believing in the truth of the teachings of the CC might develop more gradually after that initial step.

For me, the transition was different--virtually overnight. I was a Christian for many, many years before I suddenly realized that the Catholic Church was right. See, this is the bit you guys don't get. It is not within my power to believe any of the teachings at all. I've uttered doubter's prayers asking Jesus to come into my heart, and I've even attended a couple of church services.

And, of course, I have read carefully through the books of Edward Feser and Richard Swinburne and some other writers. None of this gives me any inclination to think any of it is true. So yeah. I'm a bit stuck, aren't I? What would Edward Feser's recommended course of action for me be to reduce the risk of hell? Why are you praying doubter's prayers if you have no inclination to think any of it true?

Why would you be trying to reduce the risk of hell if you don't have any inclination to think there is a hell? Nothing in what you've said makes any rational sense. Rupert: I understand where you are coming from. There is a view--so-called "doxastic involuntarism"--which claims that our beliefs are not under our control.

Personally, I think this view is partly true and partly false. I cannot convince myself, for example, that there is a purple dragon in my kitchen, or that my best friend hates me. For other propositions, however, especially those whose truth-value is uncertain to us, I think there is a sense in which we can choose to believe the proposition in question, or to not believe it. Doxastic involuntarism seems relevant to your situation since you indicate that you are unable to believe the central propositions of Christianity.

I think this is a position in which a lot of people find themselves, for various reasons. Some may not care enough to investigate the claims of Christianity, while others may have investigated and yet find Christianity implausible. You seem to belong to the latter group, so my recommendation for you, if Christianity continues to interest you and I think, given its rich intellectual history, unique claims, and role in world history, it should is: 1 to continue praying for guidance, eg, by admitting to God that you highly doubt his existence, but that you are nevertheless interested in knowing whether he really is involved in your life, 2 continuing to study the work of great Christian philosophers, both past and present, 3 thinking about Christianity not just in terms of avoiding hell, but also in terms seeking truth, growing closer to others, imbuing life with everlasting value, and becoming a better person, and 4 using your will to remain intellectually open to Christianity and its claims.

By doing these things, Christianity will hopefully remain a live option to you, and you may one day come to believe that it really does describe the world as it actually is. Best of luck my friend. Rupert If Christianity is true, it will remain a live option to you and you will one day come to believe that it really does describe the world as it actually is.

There is nothing 'hopeful' about that. If you keep an open mind about evrything and you end up not believing that Christianity really does describe the world as it actually is, then the conclusion is simple and inevitable: Christianity is not true. In other words, if you truly seek truth, you cannot possibly risk hell. Whatever you do, do not allow fear of hell distract you from seeking truth.

Thanks David. Brandon, I'm not trying to reduce the risk of hell, it was a "sake of argument" question. And I've only said doubter's prayers a couple of times in my life and it was really just for the sake of saying I tried. Then neither point seems to be particularly relevant to the matter; you aren't from your perspective missing out on anything. Yes, exactly, it's just that Edward Feser set forth his views about hell and I found myself feeling mildly curious about what course of action he would recommend to me to reduce the risk of hell.

Question: If Aquinas argues that our ultimate destinies are set at death because the will of someone without a body is locked into place, how does he then square that with the General Resurrection? Both the blessed and the damned will once again have bodies at that point, so there must be something else that would prevent their wills from deviating afterward.

Maybe not a full-fledged meeting with Jesus, what i have in mind is a moment of major clarity. Outwardly it seems as if everything were lost. But it is not so. I don't understand why Imagination is a purely corporeal faculty i. Can anyone supply a link to where Dr Feser or similar explains this?

I understand I think that the source material for the imagination is sensation, for example visual images recalled and recombined in the imagination in new ways. But that's the raw material, not the faculty itself. If we have memories after death but before resurrection why don't we retain the ability to imagine?

Poorly stated question I'm sure If I recall Aristotle correctly, no guarantees , he uses the term expressly for the faculty of presenting to the mind phantasms like those of sense: sights and sounds and smells etc. This faculty would also seem to be in play when one "talks to oneself", i. But there are other faculties very closely allied with this kind of imagining which are NOT simply those of sense-type phantasm, for the faculties by which we understand the meanings of the words we are using when we say something "to ourselves" is not merely imagination.

So also the faculty by which we go through induction, and also the faculty of intuition, wherein we make a leap to link ideas that we had not previously linked. I strongly suspect that the intuition is critically at play for us humans when we invent or create. Because these are at the level of ideas, they are not merely sense-level activities that phantasms are. Thank you for your reply, Tony! If I read you correctly you are saying that imagination in its most basic form is simple 'mind phantasms', but that higher forms of imaginative, creative and intuitive functions, working in concert with the intellect, would come under the same immaterial category as intellect.

That would seem to me to be correct - we are surely just more than dry logic-choppers. That sounds to me like it means pure reasoning e. I'm not sure that what we might call humanity's greatest creative achievements - poetry, myth, music, art, literature - are in that category. I'm coming at this from the angle of people like Chesterton and Tolkien and more broadly the romantics, Goethe and Coleridge, who saw the Imagination as an alternative faculty for discovering truth equally as powerful as reason.

Tolkien for example described himself as a "sub-creator" driven to create worlds by his maker: "Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker. This may be a failure of MY imagination Well, I would propose it differently. When you talk about "imaginative, creative, and intuitive functions", I would suggest that these are actually hybrid activities that require both sense-based and "pure" intellective-based operations, working together.

Even Jabberwocky, which hangs so much on the sounds, interweaves sound-level and semantic-content level "value" in the words used in a most elaborate way. Surely the nonsense word bandersnatch requires for its success its incorporation of "snatch" within, leaning thus on semantic content as well as meter and rhyme.

I would suggest though, that most of what you are demanding is attention to other faculties than those of the exterior senses, imagination, or intellect, i. Thomas, if I understand him correctly, calls the vis cogitative a "sense" faculty of the internal sort , but it is interesting in that it is ONLY found in man and seems in its other operations singularly critical to intellection, because it is necessary to the formation of concepts from particulars sensed.

I myself wonder whether it might be by nature an intrinsically hybrid faculty that actually operates on both the physical and the intellective planes. That's a weird idea and not something Thomas allowed for, but I think it would sort of account for the fact that neither the end product of poetry or music-making, nor the process , are much susceptible to purely intellectual analysis that "makes sense" of them in a satisfactory way.

Nobody has ever provided a solid, repeatable account for why one piece of music is fantastic and another just hum-drum, before going ahead and hearing them and just plain finding out how they sound. But even in the arena of mathematics, anyone who has tried it can recall the odd intuitive feeling of "maybe this will prove it" to get from the "given" to the "to prove" proposition.

It is certainly logic-driven to actually go through the steps and establish the proof, make it fully manifest. But the initial feeling of "let's try this" is not logic, at least not simply. And besides, sometimes when you "try this" it turns out to be wrong, which you establish by logic. I would say that the intuitive leap at the moment you think "maybe X would work" is certainly a faculty dependent on the semantic content of the terms of the math at issue.

I'm not sure that what we might call humanity's greatest creative achievements - poetry, myth, music, art, literature While I would not belittle these in the least bit, I would add to the list: there are in science and math sometimes certain additions to "man's works" that are so profound, elegant, and worthwhile that they qualify.

Archimedes "eureka" moment is a small example; the technique of mathematical induction; the concept of the limit in calculus; the insight to depart from absolute space and time by Einstein in relativity. These too fit as examples of man's greatest achievements. Yet they dependedm, every one of them, not only on the discursive reason, but on the ability to leap forward, an ability we have not yet been able to subject to direct examination - just like we have not been able to subject "making music" to direct examination and analysis.

This comment is for JesseM further up the page: for some reason I can't open the reply box at the proper place directly. JesseM had said: What about Lazarus' body, are you assuming it was a "spiritual body" as well, so that he was incapable of changing his basic orientation? Reply: I think resurrections to earthly or mortal life, like Lazarus', involve only "clinical death" or loss of vital signs, and do not involve the real departure of the soul from the body. So Lazarus' soul did not leave his body when he was buried but was unconscious, and his first resurrection wasn't in a spiritual body.

If it was, Lazarus couldn't have died again, which he did. With regard to whether God cannot or will not cause a soul to be returned to a body in a matter-dominant condition - I would say a body cannot be united to a pre-existing spirit without assimilation of the body to the spirit or vice versa or both. If the body is assimilated to the spirit we have spirit-dominance and the basic will for good or evil cannot change. Since the body in the tomb is corrupted, any attempt to assimilate the disembodied soul to the corrupted body rather than vice versa would in my view result in the soul corrupting or perishing.

And if God kept the body from rotting, and assimilated the disembodied soul to this incorrupt body, this would be a miracle, and God would not be obliged to do this because our natural rights do not extend to miraculous favours. Our natural rights are just that - natural rights - and do not extend to the supernatural. So no human has a "right to a miracle" no matter how much suffering the miracle would spare them. Thus even if God can return the disembodied soul to mortal life the fact that this return to mortality was miraculous or not natural would mean God had no duty to adopt this arrangement.

I am speaking here of a return to mortal life in the same body. Return to mortal life in a different mortal body reincarnation is impossible in A-T because the soul as form of the body is attuned not only to the human species but to the particular individual body and can't incarnate elsewhere.

I had said "no human has a right to a miracle". I had in mind ordinary people and a natural right to a miracle. It occurs to me Jesus as Son of God would have a right to receive miraculous favours; but this would not be a natural human right but would be related to his divine nature and the union of his humanity with God. I think also if you are in heaven then any desire you have is gratified so if you pray for a miraculous favour it will be granted. This right however would be supernatural and not due in natural justice.

Heaven itself cannot be earned by natural justice alone but requires grace. So a good person who rejects religion as a whole due to lack of evidence is somehow locked onto "evil" when, after death, they are presented with evidence that would have convinced them of God's existence before death and the only difference to that person is belief or not?

Seems a bit harsh, no? Speaking of hell I was thinking if prayers can help lessen their punishment? Edward Feser. Friday, March 30, No hell, no heaven. As Aquinas teaches , Christ did not die to save the fallen angels, because they cannot be saved. They cannot be saved because their wills are locked on to evil. It is impossible for them to repent. An angel makes this basic choice once and for all upon its creation. It is because we are corporeal that Christ can save us.

But he can do so only while we are still in the flesh. Upon death, the soul is divorced from the body and thus, like an angel, becomes locked on to a basic orientation toward either good or evil. If it is not saved before death, it cannot be saved. I explained the reasons for all this in a post on the metaphysics of damnation. The parallel is so exact that you cannot deny hell without denying heaven.

As Aquinas writes :. It was Origen's opinion [Peri Archon i. If the wills of the damned could change after death, then so too could the wills of the saved. They would forever be in danger of falling again into evil and facing punishment for doing so. The travails and instability of this life would never end. Hence, no hell, no heaven either.

First, as I have argued elsewhere , there is a sense in which the damned perpetually choose to continue existing insofar as their will is locked, upon death, on a certain evil way of being , rather than on non-being. God gives everyone what he wants. Second, there are consequences to getting what we want. It is often said that we damn ourselves, and that is true.

But that is only part of the story, and as I have argued elsewhere , there is also a sense in which God really does damn us. For good and evil choices merit, respectively, rewards and punishments, so that just as someone who perpetually chooses good perpetually merits rewards, so too do those who perpetually will evil perpetually merit punishments. And in both cases, God ensures that this is exactly what they get. Again, the parallel between heaven and hell is exact.

This is just cold, hard metaphysical reality, and has nothing to do with what the defender of the doctrine of hell wants. Suppose I veer left and you warn me to turn back before I drive off the cliff and meet a fiery end. It would be extremely bizarre if I responded to this friendly advice by accusing you of wanting me to die in such a crash, and insisted that if you really cared about me you would tell me that the left road too leads home, or at least will lead only to a minor and temporary inconvenience a roadblock, say rather than to death.

The truth, of course, is that you want me not to be harmed and that that is precisely why you are warning me, and that if you were to tell me that a left turn would not lead to a fiery death you would be deceiving me and putting me in grave danger. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.

Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. In the past ten years, Michael DeForge has released eleven books. While his style and approach have evolved, he has never wavered from taut character studies and incisive social commentary with a focus on humor.

He has deeply probed subjects like identity, gentrification, fame, and sexual desire. Of course, what begins as a simple face-melding experiment becomes a nightmare of too-much-information where the young couple is forced to confront their terrible choices. Each of these stories shows the inner turmoil of an ordinary person coming to grips with a world vastly different than their initial perception of it.

The humor is searing and the emotional weight lingers long after the story ends. His ability to dig into a subject and break it down with beautiful drawings and sharp writing makes him one of the finest short story writers of the past decade, in comics or beyond. Heaven No Hell is always funny, sometimes sad, and continuously innovative in its deconstruction of society. Get A Copy. Hardcover , pages. More Details Friend Reviews.

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Heaven No Hell , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Heaven No Hell. Sep 05, Dave Schaafsma rated it it was amazing Shelves: gn-short-stories , books-loved , art-comics , alt-comics.

Several years ago I was hoping to see what the short form online comix guy Michael DeForge would do if he had a story to tell, in long form, a graphic novel, but after reading this, certainly one of the best graphic collections of the year, but a new collection of shorts, I am frankly not sure what is his best format.

Or, just say that DeForge can do a range of things very, very well. This is a great display of a range of what he can do, one of the best comics work Several years ago I was hoping to see what the short form online comix guy Michael DeForge would do if he had a story to tell, in long form, a graphic novel, but after reading this, certainly one of the best graphic collections of the year, but a new collection of shorts, I am frankly not sure what is his best format.

This is a great display of a range of what he can do, one of the best comics works of the year. Michael DeForge is one of the smartest, funniest, most creative, the most resistant to categorization, working in comics today. In this collection he includes kid stories, sort of spinoffs from his Adventureland work, and he creates non-stories masking as stories.

These are art comics, alt-comix, experimental, messing with various genres, work with a certain expressive vitality. Though this somehow seems more accessible to me than some of his early work, less violent and profane and that's a good thing. Is DeForge becoming more domestic, more conventional, more coherent?

But everyone in this story seems to be roleplaying--a cop who seems to be arresting her after a family accuses her of killing their family member. Quirky and funny. But Which? A children's crime story--that genre, this time--played for laughs. One short features a person beginning to ask what kind of food they want to eat--Polish? New Bedding? And so on. Worth your while to check out! View 2 comments.

Dec 05, Bill Hsu rated it liked it Shelves: graphic-novels-comics. I find DeForge's work to be consistently interesting, even though not all of it works for me. This collection of short pieces is not surprisingly uneven. After the initial two stories, I was just about ready to give 4 stars. The proto-scifi "Roleplay" is so sharp and surprising; "No Hell" is a kind of absurd ecclesiastical tract. Then we hit a more rocky stretch. But we do get the deadpan black humor of "One of My Students is a Murderer If those titles don't encourage you to run out and buy a copy of this, I don't know what will.

Then there's the deft world-building and gentle political ruminations of "New Museum", complete with surreal cubist graphics. The last story, "Soap Opera", is classic DeForge. The protagonist shares his repeated absurd speculations, wayward romantic entanglements, and elaborate destructive schemes. These psychopathic ruminations are illustrated with DeForge's trademark fluid forms and subtle detailing, and a relentless deadpan black humor.

Somehow he gets all this to work. I can't wait for his next book. Apr 13, Connor rated it it was amazing. This is kind of like that. Apr 05, Joey Shapiro rated it really liked it. I love Michael Deforge!!!!!!! A hilarious and surreal and sneakily dark blend of straightforward narrative comics and more abstract exploratory ones. May 17, javi rated it it was amazing. I haven't finished a Michael DeForge book before, so this was a good gateway for me.

This collection of short comics ranges subjects and styles, though they are all interesting explorations of some aspect of our contemporary western social landscape. Plus, alot of them are tripped the f out. May 11, Keith Kavanagh rated it really liked it. Jul 15, Mitch Loflin rated it it was amazing. The art and the writing in these is so incredibly top notch I cannot believe.

Sep 23, Frederico rated it it was amazing. The most fitting word for this book is gorgeous. As an object, as design, as creative storytelling. May 04, Shin rated it it was amazing. May 08, Marcela Huerta rated it it was amazing. May 26, Mateen Mahboubi rated it it was amazing. DeForge is firing on all cylinders with this collection. Each story shows one part of DeForge's unique style and all are great.

Aug 30, Peacegal rated it really liked it. I've been a fan of this artist for a while.

No heaven no hell san marco concor

Alex Norre: No Heaven No Hell

Theme interesting, eduardo vargas has

Следующая статья doc google com

Другие материалы по теме

  • Intelligent hub ios
  • Warhammer fireslayers
  • Petrol bags