So on light of all the Rob Bell controversy, it resparked my desire to look into the
traditional doctrine of hell. My thoughts on it all began long ago before I went to study theology about 5 or so years ago now. A good close friend of mine was struggling in her faith over
the traditional hell concept and found it hard to rectify or justify in her mind. It was the usual question of "how can a loving God burn people forever?" infinite punishment for finite
crimes. I had thought about it before then but never in any great depth as I just didn't know where to begin, being a fairly new Christian at the time. I did my best to try work out an
answer with my friend as we talked over Scripture, Jesus and God's nature but ultimately she lost her faith (though what her spiritual state of mind is now, I don't know). I don't know for
certain if this was the cause or just one of the main deciding factors, but regardless, it damaged her once very passionate faith in God. And it was sad, I was quite upset and mainly at my
own failings in being able to help more despite not knowing much in detail about the faith back then.
Nevertheless, this has always stuck with me all these years. I've never stopped thinking about the concept of hell and it implications and whether it really is as clear cut in the bible. I wasn't sure but in the times where i didn't understand fully, I just left it to God and decided that I'm sure he knows what he is doing with people once they passed on.
Then I went to Mattersey Hall and studied theology and biblical studies for 3 years. To be honest this didn't help much with the problem of hell. I studied the afterlife in the Old Testament as part of one of my courses and that just added to confusion. The afterlife is a vert strange concept in the OT. But I never got to study the New Testament concept of hell.
Now I'm taking the opportunity to really study it all properly and find what the Scriptures do teach rather than me just thinking of all the people who have said "well the bible says ... Doesn't it?" and never really being sure of what it really DOES say. I mean, obviously I known of the places where Jesus does speak of the afterlife but what I'm doing now is looking at everything as a whole rather than isolated verses and incidents.
A few months ago I had begun to think about it all again properly and have some discussions with friends on the subject but that's about as far as it went. Now all this Rob Bell stuff has made me begin to question it all again and now I've decided to actually write down my research and really look into the history and context of first century beliefs, rabbinic traditions, the apostolic and early church fathers writings and anything else that seems relevant, all to see what I can find and to see where our doctrine has come from and how it got to be what it is today.
And so far what I'm finding is surprising me! I'm coming from the approach that the earlier beliefs in the Church were possibly closer to the original Christians views. The early church seemed to have much different views on hell than we do now, possible more in line with later Jewish rabbinic traditions from the Mishnah etc and almost closer to Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (but not quite) and maybe not as eternal.
Now, I haven't completed my research yet so there is still more to discover. I'm not set either way yet on what I think about hell, so I'm open to discover and learn whatever I can. If I come out believing the traditional view, then so be it, at least I've studied it for myself to feel confident and what I believe and have some conviction about it. But should I come out with a view that's not the "orthodox" in today's churches, and at the risk of being branded a heretic, well I'm happy with that too.
I'll write more about it once I've researched more to talk about properly.
Leave a comment Like Back to Top Seen 111 times Liked 0 times
Nevertheless, this has always stuck with me all these years. I've never stopped thinking about the concept of hell and it implications and whether it really is as clear cut in the bible. I wasn't sure but in the times where i didn't understand fully, I just left it to God and decided that I'm sure he knows what he is doing with people once they passed on.
Then I went to Mattersey Hall and studied theology and biblical studies for 3 years. To be honest this didn't help much with the problem of hell. I studied the afterlife in the Old Testament as part of one of my courses and that just added to confusion. The afterlife is a vert strange concept in the OT. But I never got to study the New Testament concept of hell.
Now I'm taking the opportunity to really study it all properly and find what the Scriptures do teach rather than me just thinking of all the people who have said "well the bible says ... Doesn't it?" and never really being sure of what it really DOES say. I mean, obviously I known of the places where Jesus does speak of the afterlife but what I'm doing now is looking at everything as a whole rather than isolated verses and incidents.
A few months ago I had begun to think about it all again properly and have some discussions with friends on the subject but that's about as far as it went. Now all this Rob Bell stuff has made me begin to question it all again and now I've decided to actually write down my research and really look into the history and context of first century beliefs, rabbinic traditions, the apostolic and early church fathers writings and anything else that seems relevant, all to see what I can find and to see where our doctrine has come from and how it got to be what it is today.
And so far what I'm finding is surprising me! I'm coming from the approach that the earlier beliefs in the Church were possibly closer to the original Christians views. The early church seemed to have much different views on hell than we do now, possible more in line with later Jewish rabbinic traditions from the Mishnah etc and almost closer to Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (but not quite) and maybe not as eternal.
Now, I haven't completed my research yet so there is still more to discover. I'm not set either way yet on what I think about hell, so I'm open to discover and learn whatever I can. If I come out believing the traditional view, then so be it, at least I've studied it for myself to feel confident and what I believe and have some conviction about it. But should I come out with a view that's not the "orthodox" in today's churches, and at the risk of being branded a heretic, well I'm happy with that too.
I'll write more about it once I've researched more to talk about properly.
Leave a comment Like Back to Top Seen 111 times Liked 0 times
x
Subscribe to Updates
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?
Subscribe today and get some STUFF for FREE!
Subscribe to Blog updates
Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS 
All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.
Related Posts
Lewk | 17th October 2022 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
MrLuke | 22nd February 2015 | Blogging
So I finally made that theology blog I mentioned in the last post on here. This blog is no longer used, so go check out some new articles of mine here: http://www.thatancientfaith.blogboss.co.uk/...
MrLuke | 24th March 2013 | Blogging
Is this what "time" looks like?Can anyone actually answer the question of "what IS time?"Is it, like some imply, a metaphysical reality - a "place" that we are "in" and God is "out" of? Or something else entirely?Or is it merely just the measurement of events and moments in a way that makes sense to us so that we can plan and do things with some kind of order and structure?If it's the latter, then time is only an illusion. We aren't "moving" through time, it only appears that way because of how we perceive the world, history and the future.In reality, we are all just in a fixed point of moments that we comprehend and experience in our minds. Our bodies, our cells, deteriorate and fail and we get "old", yet we haven't really moved anywhere in time, we've just essentially, "broken down".If time is viewed like this, then God being "in" or "out" of time can make more sense because God doesn't age or brake down, so the illusion continues due to our perspective.But if it's the former idea, and "time" is a metaphysical place that we reside in, and it is also something that has points we move to and from, and is also, in theory, possible to travel within by jumping to a farther or previous point - then God being "in" or "out" of time makes sense in a literal way, but what does it really mean? It's this idea that brings about the weird theologies that we can pray today for a past event and God can intervene because he is "out" of time and can go to that point and do something.Now, does God 'jump' around in this place called "time"? Can he go to the future and see what will happen, or go to the past and intervene in order to affect the future?Or does he just experience and have what we humans only have too: this moment. To act, to affect the course of our day, lives, futures? Only with more insight, wisdom and foresight than we could possibly know and have?I propose that time is an illusion, it's not "real", or at the very least then, time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".The past is just memories, the future only possibilities. All we really have is right now.Update (27th March): After having this as a discussion on Facebook, I'm adding some further thoughts and/or clarification below to follow on from above.In the case that Time exists as a fundamental aspect of all matter, then surely the "time" that is real, and the "time" that we often describe and think of, especially in theological matters, are two different things? At least, that's how it appears in conversation with people sometimes.At the very least then, Time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".Whenever I speak to people about this or people mention God is "in time" or "out" of time, their understanding almost seems like time looks like the blue tunnel from Doctor Who that we're all just zipping through and God just pops in at the right point and then pops back out to eternity, as though they are two separate places or worlds. This is more the illusion if time that I speak of; the idea of time like a road we travel along, which from the little I do understand about time in a physics sense, this isn't the right way of thinking about it.I don't deny the fact that things (and us/our consciousness) had a beginning point and will eventually have an end point somewhere - I am really questioning the way we measure those two points. Yes, things have duration, they have some order and structure. This happens, then that, then the other. Th...
Recent Posts
Lewk | 17th October 2022 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 18th March 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...