Can We Truly Consent to Infinite Torture?

[Prodigal_Son]

But when such language is deconstructed, vis a vie our belief systems, it can be seen that our faith systems themselves are learned in the selective, “babelic” mode, unfounded on the Reality of the ground of Being that allows them to be percieved as maps, innacurate as they are, due to being founded soley in s/o interpretations of non-s/o Teaching.

I will agree that human language is constantly an obstacle in communicating revelation. Surely, Jesus was trying to get us beyond language, to a new kind of intuition about the world. I would say that the world, as it truly is, cannot be explained with our language. We are always using a blunt instrument to sharpen things, as it were – but the only other resource that we have for meaning (experience) is incommunicable except through language.

This intuition about the world is awakened by Scripture, becoming a form of insight – I think you would agree with that. But this does not invalidate the nuggets of absolutely clear meaning that emanate from the Scriptures. When Jesus says, “I am”, in John’s gospel, it is a distinction: He is God, they are not. “This is my body, given to you” is a subject/object statement of perfect clarity, and has discursive truth value.

In other words, the living God can speak in our language, though we cannot speak in His.

in whomsoever THAT State precipitates. So apart from not being a crusader and being defenders, both military terms, there is the possibility as well of sharing experience and pointing to that State of Christ Consciousness as explicated by the Saints and Sages of the Ages, including Jesus.

This is where I think you’re playing games with language. What is “Christ Consciousness”? How does a State precipitate? You have quite a subtle mind, Detales, but I’m puzzled as to why some of your statements are so unclear.

Also, I’m puzzled as to why you would list a man who insisted he was “*the *way” as simply one of many saints and sages. Surely he was either lying or quite a bit more than a sage.

Prodigal, you are someone who might be very interested in reading The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff. You appear to be one of the few on here who might have the intellectual capacity to understand the thesis of that work.

I will look into it.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m talking about justice, not vengeance or even restitution. You’re certainly way oversimplifying to imagine that justice is only, or even primarily, about making the victim feel better.

You were talking about how families desired to punish those who had wronged them, even when the punishment yields no utility value. I don’t know how to describe that as anything other than vengeful behavior.

As the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it, **justice refers to the just **administration of merited rewards and punishments.

The definition appears somewhat circular, as “just” is used to define “justice.” You can’t use words in the same family to define one another.

From the same dictionary, ‘just’ means ‘conforming to a standard of correctness’.

Great. How do we define “correctness?”

Now since it is God who rewards us (with heaven) or punishes us (with hell) who else’s standard of correctness - or merit of those rewards or punishments - should we observe than God’s? Why should we expect God to reward or punish us according to OUR often very different notions of what is correct?

So this boils down to “God’s in charge, so we should suck up to him.” I don’t see power as an attractive moral quality, sorry.

Why would you consider it unfair that God who created the universe would expect it to run by any other standards of correctness than that which He, its creator, sets for it? Why, since you created neither the universe nor the legal system nor heaven nor hell, should you expect them to be run by YOUR notions of what is just and merited?

I expect them to be run my way precisely because I have those notions you speak of. Here’s a better question: why did God allow me to develop a moral view that strays from his own preferences? Surely I could be judged on my adherence to my own moral view, which I would share with God, right? I just don’t see how limiting my ideas necessarily eliminates free will.

In other words in your scenario I recognise the error of my ways and am repentant. Surely you know what my response will be - as any Christian would tell you, God doesn’t punish the repentant, but only the unrepentant.

Splendid. So if I’m in a state of hell after I die, and I become repentant later on, I will ascend to the state of heaven? Can people redeem themselves after death?

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later. I’ve gotta run.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

Love and judgment are two sides of the same coin. I do a bit of charity work on a voluntary basis, so I do care about others. I’m not trying to beat my own drum, but I assume you also do something in that line, since you say you care for others.

But when I hear for example that a man is deliberately avoiding caring for his children and has abandoned them, then I think judgment is in order. And if he refuses to care for his children right up until the time he dies, then I think punishment is in order. It’s called justice.

Or if you like, Justice and Mercy are two sides of the same coin.

I’ll say it again - why SHOULDN’T we be judged for our actions.

 

[Detales]

“I will agree that human language is constantly an obstacle in communicating revelation. Surely, Jesus was trying to get us beyond language, to a new kind of intuition about the world. I would say that the world, as it truly is, cannot be explained with our language. We are always using a blunt instrument to sharpen things, as it were – but the only other resource that we have for meaning (experience) is incommunicable except through language.”

“Revelation” cannot be communicated. It can only be pointed to. There may be an element of “induction,” experienced as a form of charisma around an enlightend human, or Sage. Intellectual understanding may be taught. as is said, but the rest comes on its own. And yes, there is a realm of expereince that may be called intuitive. There is no doubt that if there was as historical Jesus, He taught this. The world, as IS, can only be aprehended by going beyond the mind and its concepts, especially the most common concept of duality, and the concepts of God, and in the case of christianists, beyond the thoughts *about *Jesus that usually constitute faith. Real Knowledge comes from Self inquiry. If it is true that we are “created in the image and likeness of God,” then all the incomunicable necessitites of Understanding beyond mental limitationsare within, as Self. That SELF is not to be confused, as often and adamantly stated, with our own egoic sense of existance and personality.

“This intuition about the world is awakened by Scripture, becoming a form of insight – I think you would agree with that. But this does not invalidate the nuggets of absolutely clear meaning that emanate from the Scriptures. When Jesus says, “I am”, in John’s gospel, it is a distinction: He is God, they are not. “This is my body, given to you” is a subject/object statement of perfect clarity, and has discursive truth value.”

One of the things, if interpreted from a Unitary standpoint, that can point to insight, may be Scripture, especially if one includes no-christianist texts that aid in self inquiry. Each person who claims absolute clarity of any nugget claims that clarity usually because they have an interpretation of it and it is theirs. Thus we have even two different religions founded onh two haves fo the same sentence from the Bible. Each founder was of curse convinced of the absolute clarity of their underestanding. But their undersatnding was exoteric and empirical, and thus suceptible to the at-oddsment of intelectual interpretations.

When it is attributed to Jesus in the Gosels that He says “I AM,” we know from our understanding of the levels of teaching languge in use at that time and in that region, that He was refering to His at-Onement with SELF. His teaching centered around that idea, that possibility, that course of inquiry, for each one who heard Him who had “ears to hear.” For those who had not, He taught in parables. To His own, He taught differently, which is why my signature has the reference to Mark. So, He Knew in Essence WHAT He IS. The others did not yet know that, their attention yet being focused on phenomena. In the politicization of Jesus’ Teaching, this is where the split occured much more or less than about three hundred years later. If you look at the history of christainism, this becomes abundantly clear, with the “Jesus” story being over 5000 years old in its complete details, with all its variations. This is true of much of Biblecal content, from the flood to Moses.

“In other words, the living God can speak in our language, though we cannot speak in His.” The living God IS and has no language save what we ascribe in our attempts to point within the quale of subject/object discursivity.

in whomsoever THAT State precipitates. So apart from not being a crusader and being defenders, both military terms, there is the possibility as well of sharing experience and pointing to that State of Christ Consciousness as explicated by the Saints and Sages of the Ages, including Jesus. ]]

“This is where I think you’re playing games with language. What is “Christ Consciousness”? How does a State precipitate? You have quite a subtle mind, Detales, but I’m puzzled as to why some of your statements are so unclear.”

Although it is fun and instructive to play with language, this is not a game in the ordinary sense. “Christ” is a Title, not a person. If there was an histroical Jesus, He made Himself the Son of God by hard work and study. The Christ is that State of Conscious Awareness that knows its at-Onement with the Father, or the SELF. But that is a statement of great accuracy, not the Truth. This is why, I wouod think, that many take many of my statements to be “unclear.” I am not using subject/object awareness as a referent for my statements. I am using my experience of something rather before, or fundamental to that.

“Also, I’m puzzled as to why you would list a man who insisted he was “the way” as simply one of many saints and sages. Surely he was either lying or quite a bit more than a sage.” There is nothing simple about it, whiloe it is utterly simple. It is said that less than one in a million attain this State of Conscious Awareness. There are only slightly fewr more who can intellectually apprehend the ideas commensurate with this
State. (I was offering you a compliment perhaps beyond your ability to appreciate by directly recommending that book to you.) It can happen spontaneouly, or through hard work. In any case it is our Birthright. But fortunately, there is far more than the Bible as evidence of that State. I have recommended many of them on these fora. They all have to do with the explicaton and ancient practice of Self inquiry. As I have often repeated, “Know thySelf” is not a trivial dictum.

Sorry for any errors in spelling, my own machine is down for a few days.*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Many Christians argue that Hell is an acceptable punishment because, by sinning, people consent to being punished there. They say that God tells us what will happen if we sin without confessing and that this is sufficient warning.

Curiously enough, they are also eager to gush over God’s infinite qualities and our lack of comprehension of these qualities. They say that we can only grasp finite concepts, and that sounds fair enough. However, they don’t seem to carry this over to the concept of Hell. Hell, in almost every Christian denomination, is supposed to be a place of eternal torture. This means that if you are sent there, you are tortured for an infinite amount of time.

POI - Hell is eternal, therefore, not time-bound. Eternity is no more a kind of time than elephants are, or cheese.​

If we can’t conceive of infinity, we cannot possibly be expected to fully understand eternal torture. I think it’s fair to say that if we don’t understand a stipulation in a contract, we shouldn’t be able to sign that contract. It’s only courteous of one party to withdraw the contract upon seeing that the other party doesn’t fully grasp the conditions.

Thus, God shouldn’t offer us the choice between infinite torture or infinite happiness, as they are both items in a contract that we cannot conceive of.

Any objections?

 

[Oreoracle]

POI - Hell is eternal, therefore, not time-bound. Eternity is no more a kind of time than elephants are, or cheese.​

Time is not a force something can escape–it is the measure of the succession of events. As long as there is perception, we can apply the concept of time. So are you meaning to say I can’t perceive anything while I’m in the state of hell? How, then, can I endure pain and misery?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Time is not a force something can escape–it is the measure of the succession of events. As long as there is perception, we can apply the concept of time. So are you meaning to say I can’t perceive anything while I’m in the state of hell? How, then, can I endure pain and misery?

I don’t think “Time” exists even now as a physical dimension. And there are a significant number of physicists who are also not convinced of it’s existence. If this is the case we are living in timelessness even now. Yet we can certainly become aware of pain and misery if it is inflicted on us.

There will be pain in Hell. Eternal in that sense simply means it never ends. Why God is so tough I don’t know, but the choice is ours. He’s not soft. The price for our salvation was the crucifixion of His own Son. But He was prepared to go through with it.

I’ve said before I don’t like Him much sometimes. But what I “like” and that which is reality may not be synonymous.

I suppose the core of the problem is that He’s interested in character. We’re interested in taking it easy. And more often than not there’s a conflict. The greater the demand He makes on an individual to improve their character to the point of perfection, the more internal conflict they will experience between their “wants” and His “demands”.

 

[Dameedna]

Is that really all you have to offer as a reponse to the very real fact that I’ve stolen from you and given the chance would do it again in a heartbeat? Seriously? A bunch of useless navel-gazing?? Sounds like no notion of justice at all.

You know the saying, opinions are like elbows …

I suppose in this ideal society of yours everyone else would sit on their hands and twiddle their thumbs in a useless bout of existential angst whenever confronted by wrongdoing or evil just like you would. No thanks.

Such hostility to a varying opinion!!!

 

[Dameedna]

The Church’s entire teaching revolves around the concept that the meaning of this life is preparation for eternal life. We can choose to love our neighbor, or not. We can choose to believe in God or not. Our eternal destination is ultimately our own choice. And once again, “one drop of contrition would EMPTY hell.” So by your own standards, The Catholic view of hell is the only one that makes sense! The church doesn’t say that a condemned soul can’t repent, She say’s that a condemned soul won’t. As far as I know (and I’m paraphrasing different things I’ve read), a person who has hardened his heart to the point of rejecting the truth of God even unto death, will be incapable of repentance by his own choice.

But, you haven’t addressed what is being said here. It’s the same description people give over and over as though if you repeat yourselves, you are answering the question or solving the dilema. But you aren’t. Quoting church teaching doesn’t address the issue either. The “church” can teach all it wants about the meaning of life, being preparation of eternal life. That is simply a teaching of the church and there is no reason to support it’s teachings more than any other teachings, such as buddhist Reincarnation.

It does appear that you are truly trying to explain your point of view here, which I do thank you for, so lets try this again and see if you can figure out where the crossed lines are coming from.

A Person who has hardended his heart to the point of rejecting the truth of God even unto Death, will be *** INCAPABLE*** of repentance by his own choice. Why? If one can repent during their life-time, why not after their life? What if he changes his mind after death? Is free will no longer allowed after death?

Can you actually address this, or are you simply saying “That’s just the way it is”.

And secondly, since God created all of humanity, then how do you remove God’s responsiblitity in creating a creature that would reject him and suffer? Gods ultimate responsibilty for creation itself, doesn’t change just because of a human choice in a lifetime. We didn’t choose to exist. Ultimate responsibility will alway’s be Gods(if he exists) and his CHOICE to create a free-willed creature that will suffer eternally will alway’s be Gods, regardless of the free-will we have been given. Think…bigger!!

These things just aren’t addressed here. As I said earlier, I think we are dealing with a paradox. Two statements that are equally true. God is ultimately responsible for us, and God is not ultimately responsible for us. Both are true statements, hence the paradox and people are only understanding one side of the equation.

 

[Dameedna]

I think it’s the other way around… I think (assuming a lot for the sake of argument obviously) since God created a free-willed creature, he can hold US responsible. If we were not free willed… I would think it would be more like a train set and he would be responsible for how he played with it. Now… I do think that if God made a free-willed creature, he would be responsible for making choices fair, just like a parent. For instance, hiding and giving no evidence and then banning you to hell for eternity for not believing in him seems a bit deceptive unless you view it thought some pretty thick “this is how it is” goggles.

Do you think “God” had a choice in creation?

Believe it or not, I don’t really have a problem with the concept of punishment, although I think my view of punishment is probably different than others. It’s the “now you are in hell and there is no way out for an eternity” idea that is rather horrifying(and certainly not "loving).

What do people think they are going to do for an eternity? How long would some-one suffer, before you would do anything you could to help them? Would you feel no empathy or compassion for a human soul, that had no chance ever, of getting back to a loving state? Will God strip you of your empathy and compassion so that you no longer care?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you think “God” had a choice in creation?

Believe it or not, I don’t really have a problem with the concept of punishment, although I think my view of punishment is probably different than others. It’s the “now you are in hell and there is no way out for an eternity” idea that is rather horrifying(and certainly not "loving).

What do people think they are going to do for an eternity? How long would some-one suffer, before you would do anything you could to help them? Would you feel no empathy or compassion for a human soul, that had no chance ever, of getting back to a loving state? Will God strip you of your empathy and compassion so that you no longer care?

he wont need to strip us of empathy and compassion, we will see the filth for what it is, being perfected by the beatific vision. nor is the idea of eternity temporal in nature, the metaphysical qualities of G-d insist on a transcendent singularity, was/is/will be in one spot, so to speak.

frankly there is no POE problem. its all in the head of folks who think they can make valid conclusions about an unbouded informations system, on the tiny, insignificant resource of their own understanding of right and wrong. not something a rational person would admit to.

 

[ryeis1]

But, you haven’t addressed what is being said here. It’s the same description people give over and over as though if you repeat yourselves, you are answering the question or solving the dilema. But you aren’t. Quoting church teaching doesn’t address the issue either. The “church” can teach all it wants about the meaning of life, being preparation of eternal life. That is simply a teaching of the church and there is no reason to support it’s teachings more than any other teachings, such as buddhist Reincarnation.

It does appear that you are truly trying to explain your point of view here, which I do thank you for, so lets try this again and see if you can figure out where the crossed lines are coming from.

A Person who has hardended his heart to the point of rejecting the truth of God even unto Death, will be *** INCAPABLE*** of repentance by his own choice. Why? If one can repent during their life-time, why not after their life? What if he changes his mind after death? Is free will no longer allowed after death?

Can you actually address this, or are you simply saying “That’s just the way it is”.

And secondly, since God created all of humanity, then how do you remove God’s responsiblitity in creating a creature that would reject him and suffer? Gods ultimate responsibilty for creation itself, doesn’t change just because of a human choice in a lifetime. We didn’t choose to exist. Ultimate responsibility will alway’s be Gods(if he exists) and his CHOICE to create a free-willed creature that will suffer eternally will alway’s be Gods, regardless of the free-will we have been given. Think…bigger!!

These things just aren’t addressed here. As I said earlier, I think we are dealing with a paradox. Two statements that are equally true. God is ultimately responsible for us, and God is not ultimately responsible for us. Both are true statements, hence the paradox and people are only understanding one side of the equation.

I answered all those questions and then some. You just don’t wish to accept it. What is it exactly that you are looking for? If it’s an easy way out, then I have to tell you that you’re out of luck! If it’s a problem with Church teaching, then why are you here on Catholic Answers??? Obviously you’re not here to just provoke and troll, so you must be searching for something. What is it? figure it out, and you may find the answers you’re looking for. Until that day, I can give you some very comforting advise: follow your conscience, and do not deny it! For if you are not aware of any sin, then you will not be judged for it. Therefore, you needn’t bother yourself about the subject in question! However, if your conscience is telling you one thing and you choose another…well, therein lays the problem. We all suffer from this. Religion is a guideline, not magic. What you need to understand is that we Catholics have the same doubts as you. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that we who are Catholic are this way for one of two reasons. Reason number one is that some of us were raised this way and have found no reason to stray. Reason number two is that some of us (like me) have studied hard and prayed harder, and have found that no other belief system is as truthful, logical, and/or beautiful as Catholicism. I think that rather than spouting your personal opinions on these forums, you would be better off reading the Catechism and the fathers. Both contain the answers you seek, and both are freely available on this site. God bless you.

 

[Dameedna]

he wont need to strip us of empathy and compassion, we will see the filth for what it is, being perfected by the beatific vision.

That filth, is your fellow man. Whenever we want to devalue some-one we call them pigs, grubs and filth. It’s the first step toward hurting them. If some-one is not your equal in worth, then they are less than you(like a cow or a chicken) and can therefore be hurt.

Words hold a lot of power my friend.

 

[Dameedna]

If it’s an easy way out, then I have to tell you that you’re out of luck! If it’s a problem with Church teaching, then why are you here on Catholic Answers???

There is nothing easy about living a life as best you can, when you realize you can die at any moment and that no matter how hard you try, it is ultimately meaningless.Why on earth people make the presumption that we don’t agree with religion because it’s easier on us, I’ll never know.

However, I’m responding to this for a reason. I only come onto the philosphy forum here as do a few other athiests that I see. I dont’ frequent the other sections, because they are specific about catholics. However the philosophy forum, despite it being catholic is much more about the way we think about what we do, and not just the rules of a particular church.

I frequent other philosophy forums as well, because that’s what I’m interested in. So no, there is no “God” calling me to be Catholic sorry. I have my own motivations but they aren’t really part of this thread and we’ve already diverged enough(you can ask me on another thread if you really wanted to though).

Cheers

 

[Detales]

Ryeis1~~"… then why are you here on Catholic Answers???"

Dameedna~~"*However, I’m responding to this for a reason. I only come onto the philosphy forum here as do a few other athiests that I see. I dont’ frequent the other sections, because they are specific about catholics. However the philosophy forum, despite it being catholic is much more about the way we think about what we do, and not just the rules of a particular church.

I frequent other philosophy forums as well, because that’s what I’m interested in. So no, there is no “God” calling me to be Catholic sorry. I have my own motivations but they aren’t really part of this thread and we’ve already diverged enough(you can ask me on another thread if you really wanted to though). *"

Amen to that! Though not by any means an atheist, au contrair, I’m on here for the cleansing opportunity as well. Having been brought up a Catholic, there are still some ideas lurking in my memory that haven’t come out yet. This is a good place to say “Aha!” and expunge. I am grateful to all you faithful for that service. Perhaps some day you will have the good fortune to avail yourselves of it as well, freeing yourselves from the threat of infinite torture. Curiously refreshing.