Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Augustine's own exegesis of Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10 treats bodily resurrection as entailing literal corporeal suffering in hell.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Augustine also employs allegorical and spiritual interpretations elsewhere, suggesting his exegesis isn't uniformly literal on suffering.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Augustine acknowledges difficulty explaining how immortal bodies experience pain, indicating uncertainty about literal corporeal suffering.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates Augustine's acknowledgment of bodily resurrection with his commitment to suffering being strictly physical rather than metaphysical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Augustine explicitly states the damned will have bodies that feel pain, supporting literal corporeal suffering interpretation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Augustine's consistency across multiple works on resurrection affirms that glorified and damned bodies alike retain physical sensation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The literal language of 'fire' and 'torment' in Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10 resists purely spiritual readings Augustine endorses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.