Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Peter_Plato]

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…

I was startled awake this morning by a horrific dream. I dreamt a two year old in a tub full of yellow rubber ducks was hurtling them at you in rapid sequence. What was most distressing to me and causing me great suffering was the fact that the ducks were hitting their mark each time. I was convinced they were causing you great pain. As it turns out, however, you were not being harmed in the least. So my empathetic suffering for you was indeed “unnecessary” but neither was it “evil” because no harm was actually caused in the creation of this dream sequence.

It makes me think that unnecessary suffering is not, in fact, evil, unless some form of harm is the result of or caused by the suffering.

Which brings me back to the concept of hell. If someone consistently chooses an evil path and thereby turns themselves into an unspeakably evil creature, one whose sole aim in life is to willfully harm other creatures, then, by constraining this evil being to torment, God is not actually committing an evil. Certainly, the being may be suffering torment, even unnecessarily so, but it could be claimed that no further harm is actually being done to that creature because by turning itself unspeakably evil and alienating itself from all possible good, no further harm would be possible. God is not doing anything evil by causing them to suffer. Making them suffer torment is not any more harmful to them. It might be unnecessary, but, even so, it is not any more harmful because the actual harm had been fully rendered by the creature to itself before the torment began.

On the other hand, if the torment of hell is a natural consequent of a creature turning itself evil, that is, depriving itself of “good” by willing evil, then suffering would not be an unnecessary add-on, but inherent to the state chosen by the being entrenched in committing evil.

Hell, in this case, is not evil and fully consistent with a loving God who does no evil.

 

[ivebeenshown]

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!

If a man experiences a condition that renders him incapable of choosing to do many things, but is yet capable of choosing to do many other things, does he not still have his free will, the ability to choose?

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.

I agree, it wouldn’t. Jesus did miracles and many people of that time still did not heed to his warnings.

 

[Trurl]

If a man experiences a condition that renders him incapable of choosing to do many things, but is yet capable of choosing to do many other things, does he not still have his free will, the ability to choose?

In MY opinion, yes. But most people will argue that if you are not “allowed” to do “evil” things, then you do not have a “significant free will”. If one has the option to “love” or “not love” God, that is sufficient for the person to be a moral agent. If God would allow that one and only freedom, and take away all the abilities to hurt other people, it would be sufficient.

 

[ivebeenshown]

To compare that pain to having someone raped and tortured is yet another ludicrous and horribly insensitive analogy.

It seems that you are appealing to emotion rather than reason.

It is either inherently evil to allow someone to experience pain, or it is not inherently evil to allow someone to experience pain.

 

[Trurl]

It is either inherently evil to allow someone to experience pain, or it is not inherently evil to allow someone to experience pain.

So simplistic… as if the world would be black and white… hint: it is not!

 

[ivebeenshown]

So simplistic… as if the world would be black and white… hint: it is not!

I have not said that it is either evil in all cases or not evil in cases to allow someone to experience pain. I have said that it is either inherently evil or not inherently evil. If there is even a single case in which allowing someone to experience pain is not evil, then allowing someone to experience pain is not inherently evil, though it can be made evil by certain circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

What a ridicuous analogy

Actually, it’s a very generous analogy.

As I stated earlier, using a 2 year old is wayyyyy too generous when comparing our intellect to the Infinite Intellect. Even using an amoeba’s intellect would be over-stating our ability to grasp concepts embraced by The Numinous.

A two years old cannot evaluate another two years old or anything else for that matter, so your analogy fails - miserably.

You seem to have an inability to think in the abstract and to grasp exactly what an analogy is, Trurl.

 

[PRmerger]

Since the 2-years ols in unable to comprehend anything at all, your analogy fails again.

LOL!

A 2 year old can comprehend lots of things.

Here’s a website that limns the developmental milestones that can be achieved by a 2 year old.

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

Hah! 5 year olds are the worst at receiving shots.

You would be the kind of parent doctor’s offices hate–the kind of parent who tries to explain to his 5 year old why he needs a shot, as if by simply explaining the basics of immunology his son is going to say, “Ok. I get it. Let me have the 4 shots now because you have explained it so very well to me, Daddy!”

In the end, the child just ends up screaming even louder and fighting even more.

and if the nurse is good enough, there will be NO pain, no discomfort at all.

What???

You are actually of the persuasion that the pain of a need pricking you is dependent upon how “good enough” the nurse is at giving the shots??

Please offer some peer-reviewed, published, empirical evidence for your claim that “good enough” nurses give shots that are painless.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Again, it appears that you have an inability to grasp analogies.

Try this:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

Someone who has an inability to think in the abstract will say, “That is a ridiculous analogy! Earlobes are not green and Christmas trees are green! Therefore your analogy fails!”

That, sadly, is indicative of a very immature reasoning ability–don’t you think?

 

[Trurl]

What???

You are actually of the persuasion that the pain of a need pricking you is dependent upon how “good enough” the nurse is at giving the shots??

I am saying that a good nurse can administer the shot without causing pain. (For example by numbing the affected part with some chemicals or by rubbing.) And also, that the immunization which is delivered by a needle is not the pinnacle of technology. The delivery method can be completely painless.

But that is beside the point. To equate a momentary discomfort of a small p(name removed by moderator)rick to the fate of a poor woman who was gang-raped, tortured and murdered, is a ludicrous analogy.

You employ the duck principle every second of your life - and mostly you are not even aware of it. Just give it up for one day and see what happens. Do not take anything for granted, deny the warning of your senses - if you thonk that they give false information. If you survive - which is rather dubious - come back.

Oh, and get your God down here to give us the explanation. Then we can settle the question easily. Just go and pray… and pray… and pray… after all it is said: “ask and ye shall recieve, ask and the door will be open”… just pray honestly enough and long enough and your humble request will be granted… the bible said so!

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

I answered yet to these considerations in #369, but I forgot to point out the reference to the quotations.

There is no human logic, and divine logic… welll… maybe there is “military logic”… but only as a joke.

Time is relative in some way.
Logic is relative in some way.
God, for definition is absolute, but is indemonstrable. Everyone can believe in Him or not. But If one assumes He is God, He can be considered independent from every part of his creation, logic, time, universes… by the believer.

Absolutely not. It simply means that the peceived duality of particle-wave distinction was only a misconception on our part. Reality does not care about our incorrect models.

Why is it incorrect? It functions very well for its part. Why is it “a misconception on our part”? Because for a logical (absolute and so divine) law it isn’t possible?

There is no problem there either. Time is not an independent variable (as the Newtonian physcis assumed) it is a corollary of the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) reality.

If action needs time, and time isn’t independent, also action is not that absolute or that sure reality one can think.

There are no problems in the natural sciences, there were incorrect models. The funny thing is that in order to discard the laws of logic, you must employ them. Without the law of identity there is no way to speak of anything. If “A” is sometimes “A”, and so,etimes “B”… then there is no way to formulate a coherent proposition. If the law of “non-contradiction” is discarded, there is no such thing as “true” or “false” any more.

I don’t discard logic, I think it is very useful, but it is relative.

If the future cannot be known, no one can be sure that our knowledge will be absolutely certain; also about time and logic. So also logic (including non-contradiction law) is relative, it depends by the (relative) time we live in.

As soon as you “drag” in faith, the conversation becomes irrelevant for me. Even an article of faith cannot be contradictory.

But everyone of us, living, must have faith in something. Faith in something is indispensable to live. Faith in the fact that I’m living now and in the next seconds, that my home will be there for some time, faith in the fact that things are here and not there for a certain amount of time…
We cannot live without some kind of faith, also only in the things of everyday life. Just because of time.

 

[Trurl]

But If one assumes He is God, He can be considered independent from every part of his creation, logic, time, universes… by the believer.

Sure… by the believer. And if that leads to logical absurdity, like action without change… then the believer chalk it up as a “mystery”. But no one will take it seriously.

Why is it incorrect? It functions very well for its part. Why is it “a misconception on our part”?

Because we are accustomed to put “things” into neat little “boxes”. But those “boxes” are our concoctions. Sometimes they reflect reality, other times not. The particle-wave duality sis not reflect reality.

If action needs time, and time isn’t independent, also action is not that absolute or that sure reality one can think.

What does that mean? Time is one of the “things” that make up reality.

I don’t discard logic, I think it is very useful, but it is relative.

Relative to what? Is “A” sometimes “A” and other times “B”? If you contend that, then none of your sentences have any meaning.

But everyone of us, living, must have faith in something.

The word “faith” has many meanings. I recall a nice bumper sticker: “Everyone must believe in something, so I believe, I’ll have another beer”.

 

[PRmerger]

I am saying that a good nurse can administer the shot without causing pain. (For example by numbing the affected part with some chemicals or by rubbing.)

Rubbing.

Don’t try this at home, Trurl. Rubbing your thigh vigorously and then sticking a needle into it is going to result in…

a piercing sensation of intense pain.


And chemicals don’t work either.

If you have some peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove your argument, let’s see them. Something that says, “A good nurse delivers injections painlessly.”

And also, that the immunization which is delivered by a needle is not the pinnacle of technology. The delivery method can be completely painless.

Non-sequitur.

But that is beside the point. To equate a momentary discomfort of a small p(name removed by moderator)rick to the fate of a poor woman who was gang-raped, tortured and murdered, is a ludicrous analogy.

Again, this limns an inability to understand the abstract nature of analogies.

Consider our very basic analogy I proffered earlier:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earrring

If someone says: “To equate a magnificent 6 foot, sweet-smelling arbor with a 1 cm piece of sweaty flesh is ludicrous!”

Clearly, that individual who says something so absurd doesn’t get analogies.

You employ the duck principle every second of your life - and mostly you are not even aware of it.

Sure.

No one ought to be saying anything to the contrary.

 

[Trurl]

“A good nurse delivers injections painlessly.”

I experienced it many times. Even drawing blood was so professionally done, that sometimes I was surprised: “are we already done?”. And yes, we were done. But that is mere technicality, which is irrelevant.

Non-sequitur.

Nope, it is the very point. If a “good” can be achieved two different ways, and someone chooses to inflict pain when it is not logically and physically necessary, then you have a problem.

Clearly, that individual who says something so absurd doesn’t get analogies.

Oh, I do get your irrelevant and nonsensical analogies, I simply reject the necessity of any analogy in this case. Analogies have no place under the sun, when a direct approach is available.

Sure.
No one ought to be saying anything to the contrary.

Ah, so you do employ the duck principle all the time… Then you have no reason to discard it when it comes to simple question: “what good came out of that not-always-hypothetical rape and torture?”. Forget about unnecessary “analogies”. Come out with the explanation. In detail. Right now. If you have one. Otherwise “hold your peace”. There is another way to express this… a short abbreviation of 4 letters… but it might be frowned upon, so I will not say it.

 

[PRmerger]

I experienced it many times.

Ah. So you are citing personal experience rather than peer-reviewed scientific studies?

That’s fine.

I hope you concede that same paradigm to believers, then? Someone can say, “God exists because I have experienced him” and you will agree that this is true?

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, it is the very point. If a “good” can be achieved two different ways, and someone chooses to inflict pain when it is not logically and physically necessary, then you have a problem.

Sure.

But the point is, Trurl, from the 2 year old’s POV the pain of immunizations is “not logically and physically necessary.”

But when you see it from the mature, more “omniscient” POV of a parent, you see that it is indeed, “logically and physically necessary.”

We are, speaking quite generously, the 2 year old when it comes to understanding earthly suffering. From our POV it may appear to be “not logically and physically necessary.”

 

[ivebeenshown]

But that is beside the point. To equate a momentary discomfort of a small p(name removed by moderator)rick to the fate of a poor woman who was gang-raped, tortured and murdered, is a ludicrous analogy.

Again, pain is pain, regardless of the degree.

Letting someone experience pain is either evil in all circumstances or not evil in all circumstances. Which is it? Is letting someone experience pain evil in each and every circumstance, or only in a portion of circumstances?

 

[sophion]

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.

but christians believe that angels were able to rebel in heaven. right?

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Sure… by the believer. And if that leads to logical absurdity, like action without change… then the believer chalk it up as a “mystery”. But no one will take it seriously.

The problem is the same. You put logic over (also only the idea of) God, but God for definition is absolute. If you say logic is absolute, you consider logic as God.
You can tell me God doesn’t exist, no problem; logic, for you, will treat God as an A or a B. But you cannot say to me, if I believe in God, that time or logic is superior to God. You can tell me I deceive, but if I believe in God, and God is absolute for definition, I have the right to tell you that God must be superior to anything else.
The logic is relative, as I said, because of time. Because it exists in books, in minds, in the discipline called metaphysics etc. but books, minds, disciplines exist in this moment, and no one can say if in the future they can exist. We can foresee a lot of things in the future, but there will ever be the possibility they could disappear. If this world disappears, logic for what we can know, will disappear, being a product of minds of creatures (animals, if you prefer) that have disappeared.

Because we are accustomed to put “things” into neat little “boxes”. But those “boxes” are our concoctions. Sometimes they reflect reality, other times not. The particle-wave duality sis not reflect reality.

Do you know reality so well that you can state that this model doesn’t reflect reality?

What does that mean? Time is one of the “things” that make up reality.

You have said in #341 this:
The “outside of time” is a metaphysical nonsense. Any “action” involves a “change”. An action without a change is not an “action”. Any change implies a “before” and an “after”, therefore a “time”. Whoever came up with that “outside time” concept should be ridiculed publicly for being an idiot.

If time is relative (as physics says), also be in or outside time is an expression not clear. Also before and after, in our sense, in other universes or in a Black Hole could be senseless.

The word “faith” has many meanings. I recall a nice bumper sticker: “Everyone must believe in something, so I believe, I’ll have another beer”.

This one of the beer should have faith in the fact that nothing will occur when he takes the beer.
Time is one reason for having faith in something. An so faith is necessary to everyone. It can be used in different ways, certainly. But always faith is.

 

[fred_conty]

but christians believe that angels were able to rebel in heaven. right?

Angels did rebel in heaven as you said. But it was before the angels were given the “face to face” vision of God. Therefore they could sin and some did.

What “face to face” means is that the glory of God takes the place of our thought in heaven.
We no longer have a thought of God, but that the glory of God immediately replaces that thought. So there is nothing between the creature and God. Being in this state, we wouldn’t desire anything but this and this will overwhelm any other desire we might have had. Therefore sin is not possible. And so the angels now are beyond sinning because of this “face to face” glory.

Mt.18;10
“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”