Can We Truly Consent to Infinite Torture?

[liquidpele]

Who created Hell? Was it God or the Devil? God certainly evicted the devil and his followers from Heaven, and in some sense bound them, in some sort of abyss. However when evil is confined and yet unrestrained, it turns on itself. I think it would be a fair bet to say that in most prisons in the world, it is the inmates who make life most miserable for others, rather than the authorities.

That’s not to say there is no authoritiarian injustice in penal institutions - in fact, I’d thnk there was quite a lot, but the mere fact that hardened criminals are locked up with people of lesser evil, would not auger well for the relatively innocent caught up in this system.

In Hell, the totally depraved demons would terrorise imprisoned humans, who are a mixture of good and evil. Adolf Hitler was an absolute mongrel to a great many people, but he was good to some, and he even enjoyed the innocent company of his dog.

In other words, who does the torturing? God and His angels, or the Devil and his demons? I think it would be the latter.

That does not negate the “lake of fire” which appears to be the Devil’s final punishment. Having sated his evil appetite on so many others, he has to be punishe somehow. I think the “fire mixed with glass” is God’s sentence on him.

The whole topic is unpleasant. But we have been warned.

I honestly can’t understand how people can still believe in such interpretations of references to either the greek/roman Hades or gehenna. I find it absurd (and insulting to your own God) that you think he would have us tortured for all eternity by a bunch of devils and demons that he allows to exist.

 

[Detales]

“Here’s the thing. If God created humanity, then God is ultimately responsible for it, and every choice we make and including our existence and our free will. Within that knowledge God would have held, he would have created individuals, knowing they would “by choice” suffer eternally. And Yet god went ahead and created them anyway.” It seems to me that this position is being argued within the christianist dynamic of understanding God. That dynamic presupposes God as a “person” capable of action in the sense we understand it. If that was true, which it is not, as far as I can see, then we could attribute “responsibility” to God according to Dameedna’s very sane delineation. In Reality, I don’t see this as possible, because I don’t understand God as a “person.” but as Principle, and equatable with Life, Truth, Love, Soul, Mind, and Spirit.

 

[tonyrey]

I honestly can’t understand how people can still believe in such interpretations of references to either the greek/roman Hades or gehenna. I find it absurd (and insulting to your own God) that you think he would have us tortured for all eternity by a bunch of devils and demons that he allows to exist.

I entirely agree.

 

[tonyrey]

“Here’s the thing. If God created humanity, then God is ultimately responsible for it, and every choice we make and including our existence and our free will. Within that knowledge God would have held, he would have created individuals, knowing they would “by choice” suffer eternally. And Yet god went ahead and created them anyway.” It seems to me that this position is being argued within the christianist dynamic of understanding God. That dynamic presupposes God as a “person” capable of action in the sense we understand it. If that was true, which it is not, as far as I can see, then we could attribute “responsibility” to God according to Dameedna’s very sane delineation. In Reality, I don’t see this as possible, because I don’t understand God as a “person.” but as Principle, and equatable with Life, Truth, Love, Soul, Mind, and Spirit.

Are you saying this Principle is not free or responsible? If that is so we have a power that the Principle lacks!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I honestly can’t understand how people can still believe in such interpretations of references to either the greek/roman Hades or gehenna. I find it absurd (and insulting to your own God) that you think he would have us tortured for all eternity by a bunch of devils and demons that he allows to exist.

Well, let’s take an extreme example like Adolf Hitler for example. Why SHOULDN"T he pay for what he did? And how are you going to make him pay?

For that matter, why SHOULDN’T we be judged for our actions?

I’ve said before a number of times that on the night my father died, he appeared in my room. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, but at the end he gave this terrifyng scream and then disappeared. I still remember the scream and whatever was coming for him wasn’t very pleasant.

I don’t like God much sometimes, but I know this much - He’s not soft.

And in the end, we’re responsible for our own decisions.

 

[Detales]

“*Are you saying this Principle is not free or responsible? If that is so we have a power that the Principle lacks! *”

Thank you for illustrating one of the fundamental errors of christainism. God is the governing Principle of the universe to which a person must harmonize his belief system. God is not person, but the Infinite, Omnipresent, ALLpowerful **I AM, **and therefore cannot be attributed responsibility in the subject/object sense you are using it. Persons exist in the quale of subject/object awareness, usually unaware of the Unitary Consciousness that is the root and ground of their, and all, Being. Responsibility implies objective awareness and values. Perhaps you are confusing in this case the idea of cause with responsibility? Yet even that word is misapplied when used as a qualifier of Divinity. God IS immovable Being, and, again, cannot and does not “cause” in a subject/object sense. That erroneous attribution is the root of the false anthropomorphization of God which brings about all of the mental shenanigans necessary to justify God “allowing” evil. God knows only Self, and nothing of good, evil, or person. Principle is Power, Conscious as I and expressed as AM. Responsibility (response-ability) is the reciprocal dynamic of conscious alignment of limited mortal mind in s/o awareness to Divinity in order to make it transparent to Being.

 

[One]

~
Grok in fullness, brother.

I like the way you’ve put that.

R

 

[Detales]

Just trying to “share water.” Takes a chip off the ol’ Grok to know One.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, let’s take an extreme example like Adolf Hitler for example. Why SHOULDN"T he pay for what he did? And how are you going to make him pay?

Instead of asking yourself what Hitler deserves, ask yourself what good punishing him would do. Constructive punishment is useful because it discourages negative behaviors, thus preventing bad consequences in the future. But Hitler is no longer capable of harming anyone, so what good would punishing him do?

At the end of the day, there is one virtue that most people agree makes a person good, religious or not: the desire for the well-being of others. If you believe wrongdoers should suffer just for the hell of it (literally ), then you need to look inside yourself and ask, “Do I really care for the well-being of others?”

Sadly, I suspect that you don’t. But from the looks of it, you’re not alone.

 

[tobias]

As I said earlier, we humans don’t have the luxury of perfect knowledge, so we can’t expect to use contracts that assume such a luxury. God, however, can offer us perfect knowledge. Considering that the decision of where to preside forever (or what state to exist in forever) would be among the most important an individual could possibly make, it only seems fair that God should offer us perfect knowledge to make the decision. Otherwise, we are guessing to an extent.

If we had ‘perfect’ knowledge, our knowledge would be complete, lacking nothing. If our knowledge were perfect on the decision, it could only lead us to the right decision, either making us preprogrammed, or like God in the matter. I see no evidence that either is correct.

Certainly, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. God would have designed me in such a way that I will die. God isn’t some good samaritan that is just offering me an antidote. More accurately, he would have to be someone who has poisoned me and is dangling the antidote above my head while saying that he will only give me the antidote if I worship him. Otherwise, I will have to suffer the consequences he has made possible (and inevitable).

I think you’re reading too much into it. We poison ourselves with sin. God offers the vaccine- His grace. If we reject the vaccine, we reject that we have injested the poison freely, volitionally. Sure, some have a problem with the vaccine being God Himself, but, since we can’t make our own vaccine, only pride can stand in the way of recieving it.
The old saying ‘Beggars can’t be choosers’ seems most fitting. I have no problem saying that I am a beggar, underserving of God’s kindness, but am grateful that it is offered to me. Thanks be to God.

It is not ours to ‘consent to’ or to ‘disavow’ eternal torment. It is merely ours to accept it is real or reject it.

 

[Dameedna]

I guess it depends on your definition of responsibility. I don’t see the idea of God as one that says he has to take care of us. We’re not babies to him in my opinion. Would a mother be responsible for her daughter’s crimes? What about her daughter’s scrapped knee, or lung cancer that her daughter gets from smoking?

I’ve already addressed this in a previous post.

I do not have a problem with free-will or human decisions, or humans being responsible for themselves.

We are discussing Heaven and Hell, which are doctrines based on an eternal result. Not a finite one. IE…regardless of my daughters smoking, I would alway’s welcome her back, despite her mistake and I would keep my doors open for an eternity if that is what it took.

And this, according to your doctrine, is not something that God will do.

We aren’t dealing with a finite life here, we are talking about the infinite.

 

[ryeis1]

St. Katherine said that one drop of contrition would empty hell. In other words, since God is omnipresent, the fires of hell are his all consuming love. Condemned souls are not sent to a place where God oversees, and prolongs their “torture” for all eternity. A person who leaves this world in a state of unrepentant mortal sin will deny God’s eternal love for all eternity. The torment of hell is the fact that a condemned soul will never cease to be consumed by the eternal “fire” of God’s Love which he has denied, and will continue to deny forever.

Think of a child who is angry at his parent for a perceived injustice. The child will act out in anger in an attempt to make his parent see things his way. Being that the parent is wiser beyond comprehension to the child, the parent will not return the angry sentiments. Rather, the parent will react with love while maintaining his position on the matter in question. This will only make the child angrier and angrier until he reaches the point of reconciliation where he must accept his parents wisdom even if he doesn’t fully understand it. A condemned soul will never reach this point. They will wallow in self pity and hatred for God for all eternity while God himself will never stop loving them. Gods perfect love is the lake of fire that burns for all eternity!

 

[liquidpele]

I’ve already addressed this in a previous post.

I do not have a problem with free-will or human decisions, or humans being responsible for themselves.

We are discussing Heaven and Hell, which are doctrines based on an eternal result. Not a finite one. IE…regardless of my daughters smoking, I would alway’s welcome her back, despite her mistake and I would keep my doors open for an eternity if that is what it took.

And this, according to your doctrine, is not something that God will do.

We aren’t dealing with a finite life here, we are talking about the infinite.

I agree that the door should be open, but that’s not what we were talking about. You (essentially) said God should be responsible/accountable for the evils of his creation. I felt this was an unfair assessment of the situation imho. Also, regarding the “your doctrine” comment, keep in mind that I’m agnostic. I was merely pointing out what I felt was a flaw in either your logic or wording.

 

[liquidpele]

Instead of asking yourself what Hitler deserves, ask yourself what good punishing him would do. Constructive punishment is useful because it discourages negative behaviors, thus preventing bad consequences in the future. But Hitler is no longer capable of harming anyone, so what good would punishing him do?

At the end of the day, there is one virtue that most people agree makes a person good, religious or not: the desire for the well-being of others. If you believe wrongdoers should suffer just for the hell of it (literally ), then you need to look inside yourself and ask, “Do I really care for the well-being of others?”

Sadly, I suspect that you don’t. But from the looks of it, you’re not alone.

A wonderful reply! Punishment can be constructive, but not if there is no chance for redemption. Eternal punishment is an idea I think people throw around without really thinking about how ridiculous and sadistic it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We are discussing Heaven and Hell, which are doctrines based on an eternal result. Not a finite one. IE…regardless of my daughters smoking, I would alway’s welcome her back, despite her mistake and I would keep my doors open for an eternity if that is what it took.

I am a Catholic, and I am convinced that anyone in hell can decide to go to heaven whenever they choose. There is no rule against it. It may be the case that they would not be in hell if they would ever change their minds, but they are always free to.

Your problem, then, becomes a matter of human psychology, not a matter of divine will. Why would a person stubbornly refuse to humble themselves before their Creator?

There are manifold answers to this, but they are all guesses. I would point out that we have no empirical knowledge of anyone actually having made such a decision, and it is possible that hell will be entirely devoid of human souls. But, then again, there is always the possibility that hell will be devoid of human souls, except me. The doctrine of hell is, God knows why, necessary to human goodness.

Now if someone tells me that the Church teaches that it *knows *hell is *definitely *populated, please point out to me **who **has been anticanonized, what documentation you use to determine this. I’m curious, and I am (admittedly) too lazy to look these things up myself.

 

[Detales]

“It is not ours to ‘consent to’ or to ‘disavow’ eternal torment. It is merely ours to accept it is real or reject it.” is a statement that presupposes that the eternal torment is already a given, is actual, and exists as believed. It is an example of adherence to dogma, and is not an argument.

On the other hand, here is a statement by Mhz from another thread called “The love of God is an absurdity.” Mhz’s statement is by far one of the more reasonable and sane theistic based ideas about the dynamic that is misconstrued by the “faithful” as hell, or whatever.

Mhz~~“If there is a purpose in existing it would be for the God of creation to take a “free will” being and expose him to genuine agape love, for as long as it takes, and as much as it takes for him to “get it”. Love without end and love without failure. None of this “love means we have the right to send ourselves to Hell”, stuff. Genuine love would never give up on something it created when it has the power to do otherwise… and this idealistic God of my fantasy has all the power and time and love to do it.”

This is far more in line with the Perennial Philosophy which predates christianism and from which it is derived, or “descended” might be a more fitting word. As I stated similarly on the other thread, the fall of Lucifer, the Light Bearer, is symbolic of the adoption by Mankind of the subject/object state of divided awareness. That is why Satan is depicted with horns and a pitch fork with two tines. The divided state of s/o awareness, unconscious of its foundation in Unity, is itself hell, as will be attested to by anyone who has experienced any higher state of awareness than what we ordinarily sport as humans. If you don’t believe it, try it. Do the work and see for yourself. You will find yourself undeceived.

 

[tonyrey]

“*Are you saying this Principle is not free or responsible? If that is so we have a power that the Principle lacks! *”

Thank you for illustrating one of the fundamental errors of christainism. God is the governing Principle of the universe to which a person must harmonize his belief system. God is not person, but the Infinite, Omnipresent, ALLpowerful **I AM, **and therefore cannot be attributed responsibility in the subject/object sense you are using it. Persons exist in the quale of subject/object awareness, usually unaware of the Unitary Consciousness that is the root and ground of their, and all, Being. Responsibility implies objective awareness and values. Perhaps you are confusing in this case the idea of cause with responsibility? Yet even that word is misapplied when used as a qualifier of Divinity. God IS immovable Being, and, again, cannot and does not “cause” in a subject/object sense. That erroneous attribution is the root of the false anthropomorphization of God which brings about all of the mental shenanigans necessary to justify God “allowing” evil. God knows only Self, and nothing of good, evil, or person. Principle is Power, Conscious as I and expressed as AM. Responsibility (response-ability) is the reciprocal dynamic of conscious alignment of limited mortal mind in s/o awareness to Divinity in order to make it transparent to Being.

 

[tonyrey]

The divided state of s/o awareness, unconscious of its foundation in Unity, is itself hell, as will be attested to by anyone who has experienced any higher state of awareness than what we ordinarily sport as humans. If you don’t believe it, try it. Do the work and see for yourself. You will find yourself undeceived.

I’m afraid this is beyond me. Thank you for your explanation anyway.

 

[One]

I’m afraid this is beyond me. Thank you for your explanation anyway.

What Detales is saying, in effect, is that Reality is unified – it is the stuff of God. But humans are bound by their existence to a subject/object dualism, where we imagine a “me” in here (usually sensed just behind the eyes, in fact), and a world “out there.” Everything we sense is based on dualisms – hot vs. cold, pain vs. pleasure, me vs. them, up vs. down, and so on. Our language, in particular, is decidedly dualistic. Also, would you see the black letters on your screen were it not for the white background?

In a sense, this is hell, since in that divided, dualistic state we have forgotten our original, undivided union with God. We are not other than, or, perhaps more mildly put, we are dependent upon God, the unified whole of everything. So, we suffer from a case of misunderstanding, and when we can see through the illusion, through the veil of subject/object dualism, and abide in the Unity that includes all things and all non-things, then we have put on the mind of the Christ.

But, the only way to realize this is to “do the work for yourself.” This is not something that you can think your way through. You need to work very hard at seeing through the illusion of ego…

…but the rewards are great. THE greatest, in fact.

I hope this helps clear it up a bit.

 

[Detales]

One has stated that very well. Even RA Heinlein, the well known SF author said that “In English, only the first person singular of the verb “to be” is true to fact.” David Bohm, the celebrated physicist, even made a bold attempt to propose a mode of English he constructed that would rise above its dualisms.* He despaired, though, of it ever coming into common usage. His opinion was that the perceptual split of me/it was so ingrained from an early age that there is little hope of a public understanding, let alone use, of a higher, more true to fact, form of our language.

I was privileged to hear many lectures of the now deceased Dr. Kenneth G. Mills. He was known for his ability to give spontaneous talks in an elevated form. They are somewhat difficult in that they are meant to be interpreted more as music, he being formerly a concert pianist, than by dictionary literalism, though that works too. One visiting Buddhist nun was amazed at his ability, saying that his level of offering had not been heard in her tradition in nearly 2000 years. Others were equally impressed with his ability. The good Doctor constantly warned of the metaphysical traps inherent our language. www.kgmfoundation.org (short video)

Nonetheless, One makes an exceedingly important point. Since we build and project our inner reality by consensus, and English is essentially dualistic, it is exceptionally difficult for those steeped in both a dualistic language and religion to tweak into what is really being offered by the recent and ancient proponents of this way. Those proponents would include Tolle, Meister Eckhart, Franklin Merrrell-Wolff, and many, many others. Ken Wilber is a currently active integrative philosopher who has a superb handle on this whole dynamic, and how it fits into our cultural predilections. Could be worth a read** for the curious and the stalwart.

*Wholeness and the Implicate Order, David Bohm

** *A Brief History of Everything *Ken Wilber (Thanks, One!)