Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[sophion]

#1 is erroneous. Jews believe in a age to come, but may of them believe in different things about it. Some believe that the Gentiles will be their slaves in the age to come. Some believe Gentiles will not resurrect and make it into the age to come. Some believe that only God-fearing Gentiles will make it into the Age to come. Just because on Jewish website supports your opinion does not mean all of Judaism agrees. The Sadducee’s were Jews, and they did not even believe in an afterlife.

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion.
jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

now please show me if there are jews who believe that hell is eternal torture.

In other words, accusing hell of being “cruel and unjust” is a fruitless discussion because you can’t know that because you do not actually know what hell is like or why it exists. You should either attack the core doctrines of Christianity like God or the resurrection of Christ since the existence of hell is dependent on the truth of those two factors.

hell is a core doctrine of christianity. thats exactly the reason why people need to be saved. saved from hell.

#2 is a common view of hell, but there would be great debate as to whether that is an accurate one. You believe hell is eternal torment, which I admit has been a depiction of hell for a LONG time. However, what we know is that hell=separation from God. Whatever that means, whatever that looks like, it is certainly undesirable. This is why hell is “unpleasant.”

thats another thing. how the hell can you be seperated with a supposedly omnipotent being.

anyway like the toddler who wants to seperate from you and do his own thing, out of love parents cannot allow that. maybe at first you say “bye bye ok i’m leaving now”, but then you see her still going her way so you rush to sweep her off her feet before anything happens. right? now thats what love is all about!

#4 people do learn, but hell is not about learning lessons. Hell is something that is earned. Hell is a result of final judgement.

so the love ends there. thats all i’m trying to point out here. hell is not a product of love.

#5 except for people who commit suicide. Also, repenting for self=preservation is probably the wrong motive. Since heaven is eternal fellowship with God, one should repent because they want to fellowship with God.

suicide is not the result of a healthy state of mind:

Facts About Mental Illness and Suicide
The great majority of people who experience a mental illness do not die by suicide. However, of those who die from suicide, more than 90 percent have a diagnosable mental disorder.
depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_suicide.phpFacts About Mental Illness and Suicide

So who doesnt want a fellowship with God? Atheists exists because they have been looking for God and could not see him.

Besides, love is something that can be learned as well. Thats why fixed marriages often work.

#6 Again, hell may not be eternal torture per say. Again, who can really know what hell is or what it is like exactly? Perhaps you should look into annihilationism?

like you said, its what christians believe for a long time.

 

[PRmerger]

What is the difference? You mean that sometimes the end justifies the means? So relativism is ok?

The difference, Trurl, is this: one may never do evil that good may come.

Evil, as has been pointed out, is a very, very different animal from suffering.

Of course the solution is extremely simple. One cannot separate the intent, the means and the end into three separate entities. All three must be considered and a whole.

.
Indeed.

Therefore some ends achieved via certain means form a justifyable sequence, while others do not.

You are absolutely correct.

Which is relativism at its best, that the church also denies.

LOL!

Not even close, Trurl.

Furthermore, if one is obligated to take all tree parts into account, before the act can be examined - and the church DOES teach that, too - then there is no such thing as “intrinisically” evil act.

Again, not even close. It is a non-sequitur.

After all “intrinsically” means that regardless of the intent, and regardless of the outcome that “act” itself is “evil”, no matter, what.

You are correct!

And when one considers performing an intrinsically evil act there is no intent that would justify its action.

That is Catholic teaching.

 

[sophion]

And you ASSUME that people in eternity can change.

You base this assumption on what? Please cite some empirical evidence for this paradigm that you seem to be espousing without any apparent proof.

Its not an assumption. Its fact. People do change their mind.

Scientifically our decisions are results of chemical processes. We all have specific reactions based on countless conditions both internally and externally. Which is why it is theorized that with a supercomputer and if we know all these conditions we can predict what a person would do. Already we are generally predictable. right? but to be accurate we need all the conditions entered into the brain.

 

[PRmerger]

Its not an assumption. Its fact. People do change their mind.

Empirical evidence, please, that people change their minds in eternity.

 

[sophion]

Empirical evidence, please, that people change their minds in eternity.

prove eternity

this is silly. are you suggesting that souls in the afterlife lose their free will? can no longer think for themselves and make decisions?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion.
jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

now please show me if there are jews who believe that hell is eternal torture.

I suppose Gentiles being their slaves for eternity doesn’t count? Besides, you forget that Christianity started out as a movement in second Temple Judaism. Yes, there a sects of Judaism who have had a concept of an afterlife similar to heaven and hell.

judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Afterlife-In-Judaism-Jewish-Beliefs.htm

Please look at the section for Gehenna, which is one of two words we translate as hell. It says that it was not found in texts until the 6th century, but it is found in our Gospels. Modern Judaism is mostly of derivative of the Pharisee’s. Just because the later Rabbi’s talked about Gehenna as being temporary does not mean that other second temple Jewis did not. After all, Gehenna is where we get our idea of hell. Essenes also believed in hell.

hell is a core doctrine of christianity. thats exactly the reason why people need to be saved. saved from hell.

You are correct, though not necessarily the eternal torment depiction which is what I meant. A study of church history can show that. I am not saying that there is not a punishment to be saved from, I simply saying that we do not know for sure that such a punishment is eternal torment.

thats another thing. how the hell can you be seperated with a supposedly omnipotent being.

Personally, I think this is an excellent question. I think you mean omnipresent though, since I do not see omnipotence being a problem here. This is why I, personally, lean to annihilationism. As I’ve said before, I’m not in a position to know the answer for sure.

anyway like the toddler who wants to seperate from you and do his own thing, out of love parents cannot allow that. maybe at first you say “bye bye ok i’m leaving now”, but then you see her still going her way so you rush to sweep her off her feet before anything happens. right? now thats what love is all about!

Toddlers cannot be toddlers forever. You do raise an interesting point though. Imagine the toddler being 18 an she wants to leave the house and have nothing to do with the parents out of rebellion. This saddens the parents, but they know they have to let her go. Besides, all human language is limited when describing God. We understand God as a Father, but we also understand Him as a Judge. He is only Father to those He adopts in Jesus Christ. So the analogy should be more like a criminal on trial.

so the love ends there. thats all i’m trying to point out here. hell is not a product of love.

Since you do not know what hell is like, or the exact reasons God created hell, etc you have no reason to believe otherwise. God loves people, but He hates sin. Good people never go to hell, but no human can be good in the eyes of a perfect God. It is not unloving to give people what they deserve. It is not unloving to show people mercy. There is no reason why God has to show EVERYONE mercy because He has shown it to the few who accept His will, His sacrifice, who repent, and devote their lives to their relationship to Him.

Facts About Mental Illness and Suicide
The great majority of people who experience a mental illness do not die by suicide. However, of those who die from suicide, more than 90 percent have a diagnosable mental disorder.
depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_suicide.phpFacts About Mental Illness and Suicide

Right, but this was kind of an aside. The point is, people who repent simply out of self-preservation are not really repenting. That is not contrition.

So who doesnt want a fellowship with God? Atheists exists because they have been looking for God and could not see him.

Not necessarily true. Maybe to some, but I have met many an atheist who, after converting to Christianity, would say different. Again, probably not for every atheist, but for a number of atheist the intellectual problems are either a smokescreen for a deeper issue, or are there in addition to a deeper issue.

like you said, its what Christians believe for a long time.

Right, but that isn’t what all Christians have believed at all times. I think this besides the point

 

[Peter_Plato]

Alo, while I agree that ends do not justify the means, keep in mind that I am not (Roman) Catholic. Moreover, I was not suggesting ends justifies means. Free will/Moral agency is not an end.

You must realize that this is not Catholic doctrine. Some ends do justify the means. What the doctrine more feasibly holds is that good ends do not justify evil means. Evil is never justified.

Also suffering is not transferable or equivocal with evil. So a good end might in fact justify suffering as long as the suffering is not irrevocably harmful (evil). My quest for fitness does justify my suffering exhaustion and muscle cramps, etc. because suffering these is not evil, but merely putting up with emotional discomfort.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

prove eternity

this is silly. are you suggesting that souls in the afterlife lose their free will? can no longer think for themselves and make decisions?

I am not hard line for this position. However, N. T. Wrist has proposed that people who reject God lose the image of God in the afterlife. I think this is speculative at best, but if he is right, then yes. Well, maybe yes. Perhaps it is the case that if people lose the image of God, they will indeed be something like a zombie figure. Of course, I don’t really see the case for eternal torment in this position either. N. T. Wright’s position is that people who reject Christ will lose the image of God after they die and will simply go through eternity in this state. No one is really sure what that might look like or what the reason for that would be.

In any case, I still lean towards annihilationsim.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

You must realize that this is not Catholic doctrine. Some ends do justify the means. What the doctrine more feasibly holds is that good ends do not justify evil means. Evil is never justified.

Also suffering is not transferable or equivocal with evil. So a good end might in fact justify suffering as long as the suffering is not irrevocably harmful (evil). My quest for fitness does justify my suffering exhaustion and muscle cramps, etc. because suffering these is not evil, but merely putting up with emotional discomfort.

I understand, and I agree Suffering and evil cannot be equated so simply. However, I think the point was that unnecessary suffering was evil. So the counter-argument was that if God allows unnecessary suffering, then that would be an evil means.

Of course, my defense was that we could not know on a cosmic scale whhich suffering was unnecessary. Plus, necessities imply a means to something. So if unnecessary suffering is evil, which I agree, but no suffering is unnecessary on a cosmic level, than God cannot be accused of allowing people to suffer unnecessarily. Therefore, it is not evil for God to allow people to suffer.

In this case, the means are justified because the means are not evil, because the suffering is not unnecessary.

 

[PRmerger]

prove eternity

Why should I do that? Its existence is already tacitly understood in the assumption that you’ve made in your assumption that we can change our minds in eternity.

The fact is, sophion, you’ve accepted, based on FAITH ALONE, that people can change their minds in eternity.

You base this, not on empirical evidence. Not on science. Not on reason.

But on faith alone. If that’s your* modus,*, that’s fine. (Although we as Catholics reject FAITH ALONE.)

I just ask that you always keep in mind, when you object to others using faith as their modus, that you allow for yourself that which you object to in others.

 

[davidv]

It has nothing to to with my faith (of which you are ill equiped to judge). It has everything to do with not accepting bad logic to justify a position.

See post #385.
You committed the logical fallacy of equivocation. Your argument is invalid.

Edit: This was meant to be a response to post #388.

 

[PRmerger]

In this case, the means are justified because the means are not evil, because the suffering is not unnecessary.

'zactly.

Absolute Truth: unnecessary suffering is evil.
Echo: how do we know if the suffering is unnecessary?

 

[Trurl]

It is better that we have free will and moral agency than for us to be in an amoral society void of suffering.

I am sure this is your opinion, but I do not share it. By the way, it is a common christian opinion that in heaven we shall not be able to commit evil acts, and as such we shall not have any “significant free will”, and it will be void of suffering. Also that such an existence will be the pinnacle of existence, undiluted eternal happiness… and now you prefer the free will and the suffering? Very strange, indeed!

IRight, if you are trying to preserve the child’s life, which we should. Remember the scale that God is on is cosmic. God is not trying to preserve life, at least not this life. God does want to preserve our soul, along with our free will and our moral agency. Everyone will die eventually, so saving the child’s life is just pushing back the inevitable. God is probably more concerned about things eternal.

No sign of that either. If we are about to make a fatal decision, which would endanger our “salvation”, God does NOT reach down, and warn us: “don’t do it, because…”. And no, such a warning would not put our “free will” into jeopardy at all. Besides, why would God NOT care about this “temporary” existence? Is he too busy doing something else? A really loving person with unlimited resources would not limit hos love and caring.

None of this is substantiated, it is simply an assertion that stems from your opinion. It is also incoherent with your objective view of morality. You are subjectively saying that these are objective wrong/twisted subjective moral values. I don’t want to open this can of worms on this thread.

Fine. I was telling my opinion anyhow.

In your view, though you do not believe in God, you would concede that if God existed He could have His on set of moral principles.

Sure. And I may or may not agree with them.

This God being the one that created the cosmos and mankind. Though, wouldn’t God’s set of moral principles be the objective moral principles since the entire cosmos was created by one with such moral principles. So instead of aligning yourself with God’s view of morality, you hold to your own and condemn God on moral grounds because His moral principles are different. That doesn’t seem irrational to you?

No, why would it?

For if God is good, and virtue is an inherent part of God’s nature/essence, than God is the epitome of good.

Hold it. I never accepted that. On the very contrary, if God would be benevolent, then he would care about the small details in this life, too. God’s assumed benevolence is “invisible”. It is perfectly sensible and rational to reject the concept of God’s benevolence - precisely because there is no sign of it.

Now you can argue that God does not exist, but you have not adequately defend how, if God does exist, He is a moral monster because according to you’re view that cannot be done. Meanwhile, you say you are not guilty of being immoral because you reject the moral principles that would deem you immoral. If this is the view you want to hold that is fine, but it is not coherent, nor is it sensible.

It is coherent and sensible. You said that God does not care about this existence. So on what grounds would you say that he is “good”?

So if you found out that your daughter was routinely cutting herself, it would be moral of you to let her? It is just as immoral to let someone hurt their self as it is for you to injure someone else.

Not a good example. Normal people do not engage in self-mutilation. A better example would be to engage in a legal activity, which is nevertheless harmful, like smoking. I do have a son, who used to smoke, and I did, too. Eventually we both gave up, and now use those electric cigarettes. But if he would have refused, I would have gave him my advice, and that is all. Of course he is not a child any more.

Notice I said for you or a human being. This goes back to how metaphysics determines morality. Who you are, what you are, the position you’re in, etc. determines what would be ethical for you. God is not human.

In that case to apply human terms, like “good”, benevolent, etc… is improper. You cannot claim the epistemologucal right to say “good things” about God, and deny my epistemological right to disagree… especially since I can substantiate what I am talking about. (No sign of God’s love.)

 

[Trurl]

'zactly.

Absolute Truth: unnecessary suffering is evil.
Echo: how do we know if the suffering is unnecessary?

Very simple. We apply the duck principle. You know: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is VERY probably a duck, and not a flying elephant masquerading like duck”. Unless an actual, good argument comes up to explain the contrary, the only sensible way is to go by the appearance - keeping in mind that sometimes, very rarely the appearance might be incorrect. But ONLY if a very good argument comes along.

You can’t just say that “maybe we are wrong”, and “we should give the benefit of doubt”… nope, there is no excuse. If the suffering looks like unnecessary, feels like unnecessary, then it is VERY probably unnecessary. And as long the apologists who attempt to defend God cannot give a plausible explanation, and as long as God turns a deaf ear to our pleas, yes, the only sensible conclusion is to say: “the suffering is unnecessary”.

 

[tonyrey]

Very simple. We apply the duck principle. You know: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is VERY probably a duck, and not a flying elephant masquerading like duck”. Unless an actual, good argument comes up to explain the contrary, the only sensible way is to go by the appearance - keeping in mind that sometimes, very rarely the appearance might be incorrect. But ONLY if a very good argument comes along.

You can’t just say that “maybe we are wrong”, and “we should give the benefit of doubt”… nope, there is no excuse. If the suffering looks like unnecessary, feels like unnecessary, then it is VERY probably unnecessary. And as long the apologists who attempt to defend God cannot give a plausible explanation, and as long as God turns a deaf ear to our pleas, yes, the only sensible conclusion is to say: “the suffering is unnecessary”.

Appearances are very often deceptive and a very poor substitute for reality. As long as people are determined to ignore the immense value, beauty and significance of life they remain entrenched in a meaningless world and a futile existence. To expect to have everything for nothing is a sign of immaturity and wishful thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

Very simple. We apply the duck principle. You know: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… it is VERY probably a duck, and not a flying elephant masquerading like duck”. Unless an actual, good argument comes up to explain the contrary, the only sensible way is to go by the appearance - keeping in mind that sometimes, very rarely the appearance might be incorrect. But ONLY if a very good argument comes along.

You can’t just say that “maybe we are wrong”, and “we should give the benefit of doubt”… nope, there is no excuse. If the suffering looks like unnecessary, feels like unnecessary, then it is VERY probably unnecessary. And as long the apologists who attempt to defend God cannot give a plausible explanation, and as long as God turns a deaf ear to our pleas, yes, the only sensible conclusion is to say: “the suffering is unnecessary”.

We are looking at the duck with a pair of, analogically, 2 year old* eyes. So our understanding of what a duck looks like is very, well, immature.

Going back to my immunization analogy: from the 2yr old’s POV, getting stabbed 5 times in the thigh with a very painful instrument is exactly the definition of unnecessary suffering.

To the toddler, it looks like unnecessary suffering, sounds like it, feels like it…and yet, in reality, it is not unnecessary.

*2 yr old is very, very generous here. Actually, what would be more accurate when comparing our understanding to Infinite Knowledge is to use the analog of an amoeba. Or of a turnip…

 

[Trurl]

We are looking at the duck with a pair of, analogically, 2 year old* eyes. So our understanding of what a duck looks like is very, well, immature.

What a ridicuous analogy. A two years old cannot evaluate another two years old or anything else for that matter, so your analogy fails - miserably. We can and do rely on the duck principle all the time. And it certainly serves us well. If it looks like a lion about to charge, we do not start to ponder that maybe our understanding is “insufficient” and what we see is a friendly dog about to lick our hand. There is absolutely no reason to doubt our ability to act upon the appearances. On the very contrary, if you would keep on doubting the obvious, you would die a very untimely death. (I dare you to act as you preach and stop acting on the appearances. Either you will retract your ridiculous stance, or you would eliminate yourself from the gene-pool.)

This whole “maybe we don’t understand” is a blatant argument from ignorance.

Going back to my immunization analogy: from the 2yr old’s POV, getting stabbed 5 times in the thigh with a very painful instrument is exactly the definition of unnecessary suffering.

Since the 2-years ols in unable to comprehend anything at all, your analogy fails again. However, a 5 years old would have a rudimentary understanding and could be explained why that little p(name removed by moderator)rick is necessary - and if the nurse is good enough, there will be NO pain, no discomfort at all. Furthermore that “p(name removed by moderator)rick” is a technology dependent action. With a little more advanced technology the whole immunization process would be quite painless, so your analogy fails the third time.

*2 yr old is very, very generous here. Actually, what would be more accurate when comparing our understanding to Infinite Knowledge is to use the analog of an amoeba. Or of a turnip…

Speak only of yourself. Of course, you commit another error here. If you think that we have absolutely no understanding, then you forfeited your own epistemological right to say anything “good” about God. After all YOU are as smart as “turnip”… according to your own admission. But you have no right to speak of other humans.

 

[sophion]

I suppose Gentiles being their slaves for eternity doesn’t count? Besides, you forget that Christianity started out as a movement in second Temple Judaism. Yes, there a sects of Judaism who have had a concept of an afterlife similar to heaven and hell.

judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Afterlife-In-Judaism-Jewish-Beliefs.htm

Please look at the section for Gehenna, which is one of two words we translate as hell. It says that it was not found in texts until the 6th century, but it is found in our Gospels. Modern Judaism is mostly of derivative of the Pharisee’s. Just because the later Rabbi’s talked about Gehenna as being temporary does not mean that other second temple Jewis did not. After all, Gehenna is where we get our idea of hell. Essenes also believed in hell.

so was there really a time when jews believed that Gehenna was a place of eternal suffering?

Toddlers cannot be toddlers forever. You do raise an interesting point though. Imagine the toddler being 18 an she wants to leave the house and have nothing to do with the parents out of rebellion. This saddens the parents, but they know they have to let her go. Besides, all human language is limited when describing God. We understand God as a Father, but we also understand Him as a Judge. He is only Father to those He adopts in Jesus Christ. So the analogy should be more like a criminal on trial.

Since you do not know what hell is like, or the exact reasons God created hell, etc you have no reason to believe otherwise. God loves people, but He hates sin. Good people never go to hell, but no human can be good in the eyes of a perfect God. It is not unloving to give people what they deserve. It is not unloving to show people mercy. There is no reason why God has to show EVERYONE mercy because He has shown it to the few who accept His will, His sacrifice, who repent, and devote their lives to their relationship to Him.

so what is it, does he love all the people or just those he adopts?

about that teenager analogy, loving parents let them go but they never ever shut the door on them. regardless of what theyve done.

and like i said, compared to a god who is eternal we will always be toddlers by comparison: in terms of age and knowledge.

Right, but this was kind of an aside. The point is, people who repent simply out of self-preservation are not really repenting. That is not contrition.

Isnt it that facing reality and seeing how actually wrong you are brings people into genuine repentance?

Not necessarily true. Maybe to some, but I have met many an atheist who, after converting to Christianity, would say different. Again, probably not for every atheist, but for a number of atheist the intellectual problems are either a smokescreen for a deeper issue, or are there in addition to a deeper issue.

those converts you met were former atheists. it means they finally saw god.
so whats the problem? what did they tell you?

I am not hard line for this position. However, N. T. Wrist has proposed that people who reject God lose the image of God in the afterlife. I think this is speculative at best, but if he is right, then yes. Well, maybe yes. Perhaps it is the case that if people lose the image of God, they will indeed be something like a zombie figure. Of course, I don’t really see the case for eternal torment in this position either. N. T. Wright’s position is that people who reject Christ will lose the image of God after they die and will simply go through eternity in this state. No one is really sure what that might look like or what the reason for that would be.

In any case, I still lean towards annihilationsim.

torturing a zombie. great.

lol!

seriously if its a zombie, i dont think its an issue.

 

[sophion]

Why should I do that? Its existence is already tacitly understood in the assumption that you’ve made in your assumption that we can change our minds in eternity.

The fact is, sophion, you’ve accepted, based on FAITH ALONE, that people can change their minds in eternity.

You base this, not on empirical evidence. Not on science. Not on reason.

But on faith alone. If that’s your* modus,*, that’s fine. (Although we as Catholics reject FAITH ALONE.)

I just ask that you always keep in mind, when you object to others using faith as their modus, that you allow for yourself that which you object to in others.

So are you suggesting that souls in the afterlife lose their free will? That one can no longer think for themselves and make decisions?

Either way its a problem. If your alleged version of god takes away the ability to repent so he could torture them forever. Theres no love in that. Only hate.

 

[Trurl]

Going back to my immunization analogy: from the 2yr old’s POV, getting stabbed 5 times in the thigh with a very painful instrument is exactly the definition of unnecessary suffering.

I should have responded to this in the previous post. Even if that stabbing was done by an inexerienced and bumbling nurse, the pain is still gone in a few seconds and it is forgotten in a few minutes. To compare that pain to having someone raped and tortured is yet another ludicrous and horribly insensitive analogy.

Of corse, whether we would comprehend an explanation or not, could be decided in a heartbeat, IF only God would come an explain. After all, it is a simple scenario, some causes and effects. And we are very familiar with causes and effects (well, not the turnips among us).

There is this hypothetical Jane Doe, who was gang-raped 25 times, then skinned alive, electrodes applied to certain parts of her body and slowly electrocuted. Now comes God and shows us: “Look, the consequences of this act are: … and enumerates them”. God would simply reveal some effects of that rape-torture-murder act… and we could see what he means. Needless to say, we might not agree, whether it was “worth” it. For poor Jane it was definitely NOT worth it. (The possible excuse, that maybe Jane might be compensated in heaven is just another dumb cop-out. Jane could be lifted up into heaven without the ordeal.)

Of course God is not supposed to stop here. He should explain why Jane HAD to be raped 25 times, and not only a measly 24 times. He should show that a “mere” 24-fold rape would make that alleged greated good impossible to achieve. Or why the electrodes were necessary… You know, God is in the details. But God does not come… so we are left to our own devices, and we are entitled to draw our own conclusions. If God does not like them, he is always welcome and tell us, what our error occurred. So… where is he???