Explain the justice of hell.

[SonCatcher]

Why would he prefer to merely observe their torment?

He doesn’t. God lovingly fashioned each individual person intending that he/she should return that love and be with Him forever. Any one of them who is lost causes God great pain.

 

[clmowry]

For me, it comes down to 3 possibilities (really 2 from a practical stand point.)

1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God and He doesn’t care what we do.
3.) There is a God and He cares what we do and therefore He must have given us a way to know what we should do.

1 and 2 effectively equate to “It doesn’t matter, do what you want.”

3.) Requires that there be a religion which has offered a consistent view of what we are expected to do throughout human history.

There aren’t a lot of options that fill that bill.

Chuck

My doubts don’t end my search, but expand them. I realize I will never find absolute evidence of truth or fact. But, I nevertheless continue the search for something that resonates with me as right. I am perhaps a bit envious of those who a firm faith. I either feel it or I don’t. This isn’t a conscious decision. It just is.

For me to embrace a faith I have to first believe it and for that I personally need some evidence beyond ancient writings which cite pretty much to each other in a rather circular manner.

I kinda like the Native American philosophy of live in peace with oneself, nature, the community and world. Don’t take more than you need, be self reliant and of good heart. Keep it simple. I don’t need buildings, rites, superstition and man made rules to feel God. I look at the wonders of the universe, the sheer size of it on the macro & micro scale and totality of life’s circumstances and feel there is something more. What that something is, however, remains to be seen and experience. Perhaps we’re nothing more than a grand “Sims” computer simulation!

 

[Searcher360]

Yet, regardless of whether Higgs is determined or not, there will be something that is still withheld from our scientific understanding of the cosmos. Something which may yet unravel the current understanding. It is mystery.

**Absolutely true, which is why the Higgs remains a theory and not fact. Your allusion does ring true, though, as I keep hoping for at least some shred of proof to buttress religious belief.

**

Science, literacy and modern civilization were fostered by the Christian religion. The very purpose of science is to discover the hidden truths of this world. Literacy cannot be separated from stories. Modern civilization did rise from the ashes of earlier civilizations. I am glad to have helped. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

**I am not sure that the reverse isn’t true. Christianity was for years one of the biggest impediments to progress & science. Galileo sound familiar? The Inquisition? MIddle Ages? Crusades? Martin Luther? Ever see the “Family Guy” bit describing how far man would be without the effects of the Catholic religion on science? From my perspective of history science, etc progressed often only in defiance of the Church. True, things have moderated some in more recent times, but I view the prohibition on stem cell research, for example, as unfounded and illogical.

Excellent discussion here. I strive for such in person, but the risks of offense prevents me from talking to many. I found the degree of intellect displayed here also much higher than I’ve encountered locally. Has done much to raise my perceptions of the religiously inclined, as most I meet personally substitute faith for thought more due to individual limitations than anything else.
**
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I was writing of death in general, not particular military campaigns.

OK, but as my initial question pertained to the latter may it be understood why I might have returned to same?

I’m just reporting. However, since every doorstep in those towns was a child’s grave (they prohibited building a house otherwise), it seems likely the entire community was complicit.

Fair enough, but if one were to observe the households in Afghanistan during the rule of the Taliban could it be equally said that all were in agreement with the laws simply because all may have been in compliance?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He doesn’t. God lovingly fashioned each individual person intending that he/she should return that love and be with Him forever. Any one of them who is lost causes God great pain.

How many such losses might it require before God’s pain becomes unendurable? Or is he capable of absorbing infinite pain?

 

[steve_b]

Actually, what I was asking was if an individual might exist who had not explicitly chosen Hell, but who had, due to disbelief, broken commandments related to that belief. Let us make the claim that one chooses to disbelieve. Has he not already broken the first commandment as well as made certain that the next two will surely not be followed? What part of this behavior has lent credibility to the claim he has necessarily chosen Hell?

Would not such an individual immediately discover the error of his choice should he come face to face with God in death? Why then would such a one wish to persist in his sin as is often claimed to be the case?

Might one believe that some do and some do not? Would a child raised without faith who has read through the Bible for the first time as an adult necessarily be choosing to disbelieve in God when he exclaims how unlikely the stories are to be true? Is it true that he does not want God in his life or is it more the case that he cannot fathom why people believe in him?

While it is possible to imagine such cases, is it not equally possible to imagine a case in which one wishes there were a god in his life, but who cannot find sufficient evidence to make it likely?

Consider the benefits belief in a loving god affords the one:

1. There is common community with those with a common purpose and outlook.
2. There is the assurance that suffering has meaning and that it is noble.
3. There is support in times of difficulty and a means of alleviating anxiety through hope and prayer.
4. There is an anticipated reward for a life well lived and a hopeful rejuvenation after a life of infirmity.

How many might be considered to be against such things willingly? How many might prefer to suffer in silence? To remain disconnected? To live without hope? To endure without reward?

Is not this difficulty even greater for the skeptic? Consider that for the believer there is only the choice between God and disbelief, but for the skeptic there are a myriad of gods from which to choose. An expression of disbelief in the wrong one might prove disastrous.

Whether skeptic, agnostic, or atheist, I’ve heard it said, the reason behind the difficulty they have, is not an intellectual problem, but a moral problem of some sort. However, I haven’t seen a vote on that to see if the statement gets to the real issue or not.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

semantics

More than that, surely?

The test is the life of the individual.

Inasmuch as his/her own faith might be measured, certainly–but may any test be made to determine the validity of things that must instead be taken on faith? Certainly not.

Stimulus for the tested individual.

It is possible.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

For me, it comes down to 3 possibilities (really 2 from a practical stand point.)

1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God and He doesn’t care what we do.
3.) There is a God and He cares what we do and therefore He must have given us a way to know what we should do.

1 and 2 effectively equate to “It doesn’t matter, do what you want.”

3.) Requires that there be a religion which has offered a consistent view of what we are expected to do throughout human history.

There aren’t a lot of options that fill that bill.

Chuck

1. There is a god who cares about what we do, but who does not care about us personally.

 

[Called_by_Name]

This is a particularly useful analogy inasmuch as it helps better articulate the position of those who hold that Hell is less of a choice than it is a logical consequence.

Might I be permitted to ask, however, what prevents God from providing later protection to those who have died unprepared? Why would he prefer to merely observe their torment?

Is it not somewhat like a parent providing a child a life-jacket on a boating trip that the child subsequently refuses? However, should the child fall overboard would the parent sit idle having assured himself that since the child refused the safety vest her subsequent drowning is none of his concern?

How many might truly suggest that a child who freely chose to reject the safety vest would be perfectly happy to drown as a result even if previously warned of the possibility?

I would say that a more fitting scenario would be a parent telling his kids (repeatedly and in various ways) that he has planned a glorious scuba vacation for them and that they must learn about scuba and train first (lessons provided weekly!) in order to participate. If a child is not willing to attend lessons and/or make the effort to learn, he will still depart for the vacation with the family, but he will be unable to do anything other than stay on the boat and peer into the depths where all the excitement is and, thus, be miserable.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Whether skeptic, agnostic, or atheist, I’ve heard it said, the reason behind the difficulty they have, is not an intellectual problem, but a moral problem of some sort. However, I haven’t seen a vote on that to see if the statement gets to the real issue or not.

It is possible. In order to bring the question of God into focus there may often require an impetus.

On the other hand, is it not also possible that such a potentially facile desire to blame the skeptic is a natural extension of a faith that already blames mankind for every fault and evil that would otherwise be fairly considered the responsibility of God?

Might it not be understandable for a skeptic to also see this as potentially akin to an abusive relationship in which the victim is forever excusing the aggressor by heaping the blame upon herself? Might she not equally seek his forgiveness for every trifle in order to bask in his rare, but intense love? Is such a one not also very plain in his demands for obedience, gratitude, and admiration?

I sincerely hope such questions are not viewed as provocative or insulting. I value all of your (name removed by moderator)ut and would not willingly cause offense.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[Searcher360]

I would say that a more fitting scenario would be a parent telling his kids (repeatedly and in various ways) that he has planned a glorious scuba vacation for them and that they must learn about scuba and train first (lessons provided weekly!) in order to participate. If a child is not willing to attend lessons and/or make the effort to learn, he will still depart for the vacation with the family, but he will be unable to do anything other than stay on the boat and peer into the depths where all the excitement is and, thus, be miserable.

True, but this analogy assumes that instructions and the like have been expressly given and understandable. Cryptic, subtle or hidden hints aren’t enough to my way of thinking. Just for once I wish God would be more direct and less mysterious or hidden. Not logical. I have trouble seeing how or why God would or should have human emotions and failings such as wrath. For that matter I can’t see why the almighty would care who eats meat on a certain day of the week. Illogical.

 

[jmvizanko]

Do you mean like the blind men and the elephant?

Each of them had a basic understanding of what an elephant is, yet no two of them could agree on any aspect.

Stop me where I get something wrong, given my basic, “worthless” understanding:

1. God decided that all men deserve hell, unless they are forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ, and live according to his teachings.
2. But not everybody has heard the Gospel, since God left it to books and man to spread.
3. And others hear the Gospel and honestly think its ridiculous, not out of rebellion, but because it is illogical to them.
4. God never shows up to make it positively clear to anyone that the Gospel is true.
5. God seemingly only cares if you were lucky enough to both hear the Gospel, and have a mindset that would find it true instead of ridiculous, and rewards most those that have heard the Gospel, thought it was convincingly true, and lived most parallel to its teachings.
6. God seemingly doesn’t care if you were unlucky enough to either not hear the Gospel, or hear it and find it ridiculous through no fault of your own, and punishes most those that either have not heard the Gospel and through no fault of their own have lived their lives according to whatever morality they acquired by their surroundings if it does not match the morality of the Gospel they never heard, or have heard the Gospel and found it ridiculous through no fault of their own.
7. God’s justice is arbitrarily based on things nobody has any control over.

 

[pismopal]

I understand that, and I have zero fear for whatever lays beyond death, which I think is probably just annihilation like you say. But I’m asking the people that DO believe in hell, for the reasons they have or can think of for why it makes any sense.

And if the god of Christianity exists, then hell is something he created, therefore it is part of “the reality of god.” And if hell is ridiculous for a good and intelligent god to do, then its a good reason to dismiss the “reality” of that god.

What is ridiculous about having a place for the good people ( Mother Theresa) and a place for the evil ( Hitler/Stalin)? In fact…if there is no God, there is no reason for good and there would be no way to judge good from evil anyway. Do you think that it is ok to take what you wish and kill whoever gets in your way? Certainly not, I am guessing…but without God there would be no reason. Would there?

 

[SonCatcher]

I am not sure that the reverse isn’t true. Christianity was for years one of the biggest impediments to progress & science. Galileo sound familiar?

Galileo was praised for his science. His only problem was in thinking that his excellent science qualified him as a theologian.

The Inquisition?

A secular persecution under religious pretenses. The only penalty the Church imposed on exposed “heretics” was banning them from receiving the Sacraments.

MIddle Ages?

I fail to see any problem or connection. How is religion in any way responsible for the existence of a period in time?

Crusades?

The stated purpose of assisting those under persecution is possibly commendable. However, when secular authorities get involved the situation is ripe for abuse.

Martin Luther?

He’s responsible for his own bad behavior. Most of his charges, BTW, were either false or being dealt with separately.

Ever see the “Family Guy” bit describing how far man would be without the effects of the Catholic religion on science?

No. I doubt any farcical speculation would stand long against a close examination of history.

From my perspective of history science, etc progressed often only in defiance of the Church.

When your primary source of history is moderated, that’s what you get.

True, things have moderated some in more recent times, but I view the prohibition on stem cell research, for example, as unfounded and illogical.

:tsktsk: There is only a problem with embryonic stem cell use because they are only obtained through murder. Cord blood (pluripotent) and other types of stem cells are encouraged for use.

Excellent discussion here. I strive for such in person, but the risks of offense prevents me from talking to many. I found the degree of intellect displayed here also much higher than I’ve encountered locally. Has done much to raise my perceptions of the religiously inclined, as most I meet personally substitute faith for thought more due to individual limitations than anything else.

I also find the discussion stimulating.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I would say that a more fitting scenario would be a parent telling his kids (repeatedly and in various ways) that he has planned a glorious scuba vacation for them and that they must learn about scuba and train first (lessons provided weekly!) in order to participate. If a child is not willing to attend lessons and/or make the effort to learn, he will still depart for the vacation with the family, but he will be unable to do anything other than stay on the boat and peer into the depths where all the excitement is and, thus, be miserable.

Ah, this is a fair retort. So in the previous analogy we see, as a substitute for Hell, a child die in fear and anxiety as she drowns whereas in the above we see simply a child who has missed out on an exciting excursion–a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Might it surprise you that I prefer your analogy to my own? For yours offers hope that the child might choose more wisely the next time or, at the very least, that she might be reunited with her family after the excursion and eventually share in their excitement through its retelling whereas mine is final and lends no hope for the drowning child to recover from her foolish choice. In addition, the parent in yours is full of a desire that his children enjoy themselves whereas mine paints a picture of a stern parent who might wish for choices to be final as a consequence of rebellion.

Thank you for this uplifting analogy.

 

[SonCatcher]

Stop me where I get something wrong, given my basic, “worthless” understanding:

Very well. I don’t think I used the word “worthless” in this context, however. A basic understanding certainly isn’t worthless, at any rate. It’s a starting point.

1. God decided that all men deserve hell

There you go.

 

[jmvizanko]

There you go.

You are the one that said it is unfair that anybody go to heaven to begin with. How does that not equate to God thinking everyone deserves hell?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Excellent discussion here. I strive for such in person, but the risks of offense prevents me from talking to many. I found the degree of intellect displayed here also much higher than I’ve encountered locally. Has done much to raise my perceptions of the religiously inclined, as most I meet personally substitute faith for thought more due to individual limitations than anything else.

I am in agreement with you: many here have taken great efforts to explain their thoughts without losing patience in spite of some inevitable repetition. Perhaps in person we may have all been forced by now to settle this outside in a more physical exchange, but here understanding in spite of disagreement seemingly reigns.

I appreciate everyone’s effort and time.

 

[SonCatcher]

You are the one that said it is unfair that anybody go to heaven to begin with. How does that not equate to God thinking everyone deserves hell?

Saying it is “unfair that anyone should go to Heaven” is not quite the same as saying “God said everyone is deserving of Hell.”

The first statement comes from the fallen nature of humanity.

God created us to be with Him, however, so the second statement just isn’t so.

I am sorry you find this conversation so difficult.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What is ridiculous about having a place for the good people ( Mother Theresa) and a place for the evil ( Hitler/Stalin)?

Nothing, but need it be a punitive difference? May one envision Mother Theresa glowing with pleasure as she imagines Hitler screaming in torment? Or might one consider her to be pleased enough to find that he might simply be distantly removed and unable to bother her?

Is not a desire for revenge on one’s foes born out of a lack of charity for their circumstance and upbringing? Why might one expect a loving god to share such a lack?

In fact…if there is no God, there is no reason for good and there would be no way to judge good from evil anyway. Do you think that it is ok to take what you wish and kill whoever gets in your way? Certainly not, I am guessing…but without God there would be no reason. Would there?

It is possible. On the other hand, is such one’s experience of reality? Are countries where atheism is in a high percentage (such as Japan and Scandinavia) overrun with murderous outbursts or does such behavior more consistently reside within the borders of theocracies (such as may be found in the Middle East and Africa)?

Is it fair to consider that one’s reason necessarily departs once a belief in God is abandoned? Does one not still wish to reside within a stable society? Does one not still value life (especially given the belief of its finite limit)? Does one not still harbor empathy and compassion? Love and positive convictions?

Is one’s sole deterrent for killing one’s neighbor a fear of God’s reprisal in Hell? Is one’s sole reason for doing good due to one’s expectation of later payment in Heaven?