Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Peter_Plato]

It is the Christian perspective that allows for man to do as much evil as he likes, convert, repent, and enjoy eternal bliss

Actually, that is not the Christian perspective. The Catholic position is that any person can be redeemed (remade, reformed, re-created) after committing sin. It does not mean the transformation will be painless, quick or easy, but possible, though not without the “taking on” of the suffering caused others (retribution). It is not clear that the position allows someone to “do as much evil as he or she?] likes,” but genuine and sincere conversion is always possible. Are you saying the commission of any evil should be warrant for the denial of eternal bliss?

 

[atheistgirl]

well in the case of males, i think most of us would agree.

Once again, I fail to see why you think there’s something amusing in rape

but females? i understand their brain is their primary sex organ. how can the brain be stimulated to orgasm if it is suffering?

I don’t think you understand very much at all really.

Do some research.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Are you saying the commission of any evil should be warrant for the denial of eternal bliss?

I don’t believe in evil, nor do I think that evil exists as an entity in it’s own right.

However, for the sake of discussion, assuming there is such a thing as eternal bliss, no, I don’t think if a person stole a cookie once, when they were like seven, they should be denied this; yes, I think if a person murdered or raped, they should be denied eternal bliss.

Sarah x

 

[sophion]

Once again, I fail to see why you think there’s something amusing in rape

orgasm is always amusing.

 

[sophion]

I don’t think you understand very much at all really.

Do some research.

here’s my research:
*
Heartbreaking. Levin and van Berlo found that victims report evidence of physical arousal in as many as 21 percent of rape cases, even when they also report violence and high levels of fear and mental distress. Why? The researchers note that many rapes are comitted by acquaintances or romantic partners of the victims; initial familiarity or even attraction might be supplanted by terror as an encounter becomes coercive. This is relevant, I think, to the charges against Julian Assange, who is accused of sexual assault for refusing to wear a condom with female partners who had earlier consented to sex. If that occured, it is still rape: physical force was used to violate the initial, consensual terms of the encounter.*

thenation.com/blog/169474/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault#

there you go. i was right. there was a consent.
thing is, the west now has such a high standards that such sexual encounters that turn sour are being classified as ‘rape’. thats why there are sometimes orgasms in ‘rape’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t believe in evil, nor do I think that evil exists as an entity in it’s own right.

Nor do I, but I do believe that speaking of disease or dysfunction makes sense, even though these are privations of a good and meaningless without it.

However, for the sake of discussion, assuming there is such a thing as eternal bliss, no, I don’t think if a person stole a cookie once, when they were like seven, they should be denied this; yes, I think if a person murdered or raped, they should be denied eternal bliss.

Not even if they have completely reformed, suffered retribution and been transformed into a wholly new being by God’s grace?

Sounds to me like you do believe evil exists as an entity in its own right and cannot be redeemed rather than as some kind of privation or degeneration of a being that is essentially good that needs repair or regeneration.

It also appears that you are amenable to some sort of doctrine of hell or do you believe those who do grave evil to others should not suffer any form of retribution in an afterlife (if one exists) but merely denied eternal bliss?

 

[Portofino]

here’s my research:

*
Heartbreaking. Levin and van Berlo found that victims report evidence of physical arousal in as many as 21 percent of rape cases, even when they also report violence and high levels of fear and mental distress. Why? The researchers note that many rapes are comitted by acquaintances or romantic partners* of the victims; initial familiarity or even attraction might be supplanted by terror as an encounter becomes coercive.

This doesn’t explain arousal or orgasm experienced during rape by strangers, which also exists.

I’m not an expert in neuroscience, but there obviously are multiple “layers” to the human brain, including layers that are comparatively more unconscious or “primitive.”

Easy example – being frightened can be both terrifying and thrilling. There is a rush of adrenaline; the danger is both painful and, on some level, pleasurable.

The popularity of horror movies and roller coasters are perfect examples of this. People scream – and then they laugh (so long as they feel safe).

Is it possible that, if you were really being chased by a homicidal killer, you would – on some level – enjoy it? Perhaps you would have an adrenaline high and feel invigorated, by running for your life; your mental sharpness could be incredible (“the prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully” – Samuel Johnson). On another level, of course, you would be terrified and (in the aftermath) might be a victim of Post traumatic stress disorder or “shell shock.”

From what I understand about rape victims – whether raped by strangers, or by acquaintances – the response of their physical body (or of that more visceral part of their brains) does not at all supersede the trauma that can exist on an emotional or mental level. If anything, it makes it worse because – as mentioned – there is then a feeling of shame or guilt, or of being betrayed by one’s own body.

If someone tickles you, you will laugh. That is an involuntary response of your body; and, on some level of your psyche, you are ‘enjoying it.’

But this doesn’t make it any less an involuntary response – just as it would be for the heterosexual man who is raped by another man, and whose body responds to it.

Rape, as I see it, is illegal for two reasons – 1. if it is non-consensual, it is a violation of your autonomy over your own body (a ‘theft’ of your most intimate article of ‘private property’, a ‘forcible entry’ into the domain of your body itself) 2. it is presumed to be an act that – if non-consensual – is a source of mental and emotional anguish (pain and suffering). Of course, it becomes almost circular. If there were no pain and suffering – or anticipation of such, on the part of the victim – it would be much more rare for consent to be withheld.
​

​

 

[sophion]

This doesn’t explain arousal or orgasm experienced during rape by strangers, which also exists.

where is the study that says there is orgasm from the rape by complete strangers?

Easy example – being frightened can be both terrifying and thrilling. There is a rush of adrenaline; the danger is both painful and, on some level, pleasurable.

The popularity of horror movies and roller coasters are perfect examples of this. People scream – and then they laugh (so long as they feel safe).

only because they know there is reason to believe that it is safe.

i dont think you can say the same about the horrified passengers of a crashing aircraft!

---

with rape of course orgasm is possible if there was an attraction to begin with especially if sex was originally planned!

 

[atheistgirl]

here’s my research:

Googling an article isn’t research

there you go. i was right. there was a consent…thats why there are sometimes orgasms in ‘rape’.

You’re ignorance is only overshadowed by your offensiveness to suggest women who lubricate or orgasm during a rape, consented to being raped. Women who have been horrifically and violently raped by complete strangers have lubricated and experienced orgasm.

Do some proper research.

Until you do, you run the risk with your latest comments of sounding very misogynistic.

Sarah x

 

[sophion]

You’re ignorance is only overshadowed by your offensiveness to suggest women who lubricate or orgasm during a rape, consented to being raped. Women who have been horrifically and violently raped by complete strangers have lubricated and experienced orgasm.

who said anything about complete strangers? please read it again…

*“rapes are comitted by acquaintances or romantic partners”

“initial familiarity or even attraction”

“earlier consented to sex”*

 

[atheistgirl]

Sounds to me like you do believe evil exists as an entity in its own right and cannot be redeemed rather than as some kind of privation or degeneration of a being that is essentially good that needs repair or regeneration.

No. I don’t believe evil exists as an entity.

I believe people can be redeemed to some extent - otherwise I wouldn’t employ ex-convicts in one of my businesses. I do this for practical reasons. If I can give a guy back his self respect and dignity through work, where he can hold his head up high, provide for his family, get some ambition into him, and do well, without reverting to crime, that’s one less criminal in the world my family and I have to worry about meeting on a dark night!!!

However, I believe, when this guy is dead, he’s dead. He will neither get an eternal reward, or an eternal punishment.

He’s been punished here by the fines, and deprivation of liberty, and damage to his friends and family.

It also appears that you are amenable to some sort of doctrine of hell or do you believe those who do grave evil to others should not suffer any form of retribution in an afterlife (if one exists) but merely denied eternal bliss?

No. I believe when they’re dead, they’re dead. However, if there is an eternal place of punishment, (which I don’t believe there is) I want it filled to the rafters with murderers, rapists, those who scammed the old and the vulnerable, Politicians, and the people who invented those dumb games apps.

Sarah x

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. I believe when they’re dead, they’re dead. However, if there is an eternal place of punishment, (which I don’t believe there is) I want it filled to the rafters with murderers, rapists, those who scammed the old and the vulnerable, Politicians, **and the people who invented those dumb games apps. **

Sarah x

I see you named the most reprobate and despicable last.

Reminds me of the Tasmanian Devil’s diet: “…and especially rabbits!”

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

I don’t believe in evil, nor do I think that evil exists as an entity in it’s own right.

Excuse me if I didn’t read the big part of the posts; and yet probably you have explained something about similar considerations.
I don’t know what kind of atheist you are (there’s a lot of kind of atheists, as there are a lot of kind of believers in God); but if you you don’t believe in evil, how can you say that rape, assassination and other similar things are evil? Aren’t they a part of the ethical indifference of the purely material reality?

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t know what kind of atheist you are

One who sees no evidence for the existence of a supernatural Deity. Nothing more. Nothing less. My atheism, outside of this, says nothing about what I think, feel, how I vote, eat, what I read, or anything else.

It’s simply a single position, on a single issue.

but if you you don’t believe in evil, how can you say that rape, assassination and other similar things are evil? Aren’t they a part of the ethical indifference of the purely material reality?

I don’t believe ‘‘evil’’ exists as a force, or entity, in it’s own right.

People do ‘‘evil’’ or ‘‘bad’’ things, for a myriad of reasons.

None of which have anything to do with a force outside of themselves, called evil.

Sarah x

 

[Portofino]

Excuse me if I didn’t read the big part of the posts; and yet probably you have explained something about similar considerations.
I don’t know what kind of atheist you are (there’s a lot of kind of atheists, as there are a lot of kind of believers in God); but if you you don’t believe in evil, how can you say that rape, assassination and other similar things are evil? Aren’t they a part of the ethical indifference of the purely material reality?

We really do not know whether the sun, moon and the stars are outraged by something like rape; nor that something “behind” the sun, moon, and the stars is outraged by – or, at least, condemns – something like rape. It (or they) certainly will not intervene, to stop it.

What we do know is that our societies condemn it as unacceptable behavior, and that this prohibition is all but inevitable. Rape is one of many forms of “anti-social” behavior, that is harmful to others who are living in a society and that undermines the very stability of the social fabric. If it were permitted, there would be a great deal of social unrest (men would be killing each other to avenge the women in their lives, and women – frankly – would be killing men, in a world where rape was perfectly legal and was the rule, rather than the exception). I’m a movie buff, and the opening scene of the Godfather (where a father seeks to avenge his physically abused daughter) – as well as the film as a whole, in my mind – is a telling example of why laws exist – to protect people’s perceived interests, and to maintain peaceful co-existence (there have also been comparisons made between Coppola’s the Godfather and the Oresteia of Aeschylus, whereby notions of “justice” evolve from personal acts of vengeance–which sows much social unrest creates a vicious circle of violence and bloodshed --into courts, juries, and laws that are “abstract” and universal, and that arbiter more dispassionately). Nonetheless, there was a case in the papers recently, about a Texas man who killed another man who was caught in the act of raping his six-year-old daughter; the death resulted from his physical attack on the man. Rightly or wrongly, he was exonerated.

Regarding the above, you can ask, “why do we have these perceived interests? Why don’t women want to be raped?” or “why don’t parents want their children to be raped?” but it’s a question that does not have much pragmatic relevance.

Most people also feel a great deal of “emotional repugnance” at the idea of rape in the abstract (as the Senator’s comments on ‘legitimate rape’ have made clear). We lalso tend to think that this emotional repugnance to rape – as to an act of violence – is a “healthy” and “normal” response, and that an enthusiastic affirmation of rape would be “unhealthy” and “abnormal.”

In the most pragmatic terms, we are correct – an enthusiastic affirmation of the rape of others is abnormal and potentially anti-social, and those who pass from desiring it, to acting on it, can be removed from society, for this reason. It’s abnormal almost in the sense that it is abnormal to drink paint thinner, even though we’re not sure whether the universe (or something behind the universe) cares whether we drink paint thinner, or not. And our very laws are themselves “in the abstract” (as stated above) not necessarily related to you personally, or to people you personally care about. So they exist as universal standards or norms of conduct.

The more metaphysical question of whether rape is intrinsically evil in a cosmic or supernatural sense does not (I personally believe) admit of a definitive answer. Pragmatically and emotionally, however, the fact that it is socially unacceptable behavior, remains the same.

I personally believe that morality is a tough nut to crack, no matter how one looks at it. If we believe that it is objectively, morally wrong in a cosmic sense (which is more or less what this strong “emotional repugnance” points towards, even in non-believers) we have a hard time proving that we’re right, except as an article of faith.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

People do ‘‘evil’’ or ‘‘bad’’ things, for a myriad of reasons

I can agree on the idea that Evil, as a force external to men, is a matter of faith.

But on what basis one can say this is bad/evil, and that is good?

We really do not know whether the sun, moon and the stars are outraged by something like rape; nor that something “behind” the sun, moon, and the stars is outraged by – or, at least, condemns – something like rape. It (or they) certainly will not intervene, to stop it.

This has to do, among other things, with Liberty: for a Catholic believer, one of the most important gifts from God. Probably everyone knows this reasoning (excuse me for my English):

• Do exist beings which have Liberty;
• The existence of beings who can freely choose the moral good is better than existence of people (beings) who aren’t free to choose;
• Liberty of freely choosing the moral good implies the possibility of choosing also what is morally wrong (the evil); in fact, it would be impossible offering Liberty to someone, limiting it only to good behaviour;
• the possibility to choose what is morally wrong (evil) implies the possibility to make indeed something morally evil;
• at certain conditions, the positive value of Liberty can counterbalance the risks connected with morally evil decisions.

If God intervenes in situations in which men are free and make bad things, He’d revoke this gift to men. But in this way Liberty wouldn’t be real.
Some problems lie in those: “at certain conditions” and “can counterbalance the risks”. But if Liberty is given, it must be an unconditioned Liberty. A restriction to Liberty lies in another different gift of God: the limitedness (in time and space) of Men.

So they exist as universal standards or norms of conduct.

One can say these are universal standards or norms, but history doesn’t agree. During the history of men, a lot of laws permitted raping (and other, for us, real evil doings). And, because of that, there are more and more people saying “good and evil are relative and conventional”. Obviously I don’t agree, because without some norm almost metaphysical, or valid in every time and place, about what is good or bad/evil there are great risks for the society.

If we believe that it is objectively, morally wrong in a cosmic sense (which is more or less what this strong “emotional repugnance” points towards, even in non-believers) we have a hard time proving that we’re right, except as an article of faith.

To deny that something evil and something good exist in a cosmic sense, in my opinion, is very dangerous. If we don’t try and prove we’re right affirming that there is a fundamental distinction between evil and good, any kind of morality can be assembled and justified.

 

[Portofino]

One can say these are universal standards or norms, but history doesn’t agree.QUOTE]

Alas, this is true. This unfortunately does no change, even if one believes in objective moral standards, because there may always be multiple religions and multiple moral codes.

For example, as I understand it, there are certain forms of Islamic belief that permit rape as a form of retribution. Obviously, in Biblical times, the stoning of someone who committed adultery was considered a moral form of behavior, as well.

Even the belief in absolutes is very difficult to maintain. For example, Christianity generally does not believe in non-violence as an absolute. There are contexts relative to which the use of violence is justified (e.g., “just war”). Once you have compromised on “do not kill”, however, Pandora’s box has been opened (e.g., individuals who support the death penalty but not abortion; and, conversely, individuals who support abortion, but not the death penalty). If there were no exceptions, whatsoever, to the use of violence, then you couldn’t have individuals who could say – in good conscience, in their own minds – “I am for non-violence, yet there are certain legitimate exceptions.”
Alberto Q CM;9955019:

To deny that something evil and something good exist in a cosmic sense, in my opinion, is very dangerous. If we don’t try and prove we’re right affirming that there is a fundamental distinction between evil and good, any kind of morality can be assembled and justified.

This is an argument from utility. Unfortunately, it is “neither here nor there” as regards proof (to say that non-belief in something is dangerous is not proof that belief in it is true). I agree, however – objective moral standards are important (even socially), which is not to say that those standards cannot change. For example, 200 years ago, it was not objectively immoral (as far as most western societies were concerned) to hold slaves. It is ironic, but standards of morality sometimes can change for the “better” (i.e., in a way that is more humane).

As for danger, I know of no more dangerous phenomenon – for better or for worse – than free will itself. Free will is one of the most dangerous things that I know of.

No worries about your English, by the way…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree, however – objective moral standards are important (even socially), which is not to say that those standards cannot change. For example, 200 years ago, it was not objectively immoral (as far as most western societies were concerned) to hold slaves. It is ironic, but standards of morality sometimes can change for the “better” (i.e., in a way that is more humane).

This does not show that actual moral “standards” changed. It does show that moral practices definitely changed and, perhaps, even that moral understanding among humans may have changed. However, it requires more than a mere observation to show that the actual standards have changed unless you assume the premise that standards are merely what is practiced.

That argument could quickly be dismantled, especially when, by your own admission, you claim that they have changed for the “better.” How would you know they were better except by appeal to a standard that transcends both situations and by which both could be assessed?

 

[PRmerger]

Even the belief in absolutes is very difficult to maintain. For example, Christianity generally does not believe in non-violence as an absolute.

I think you may be operating from the misapprehension that Catholicism proclaims an absolute moral absolutism. It does not.

We are relative moral absolutists. That is, there are some things that we proclaim are, indeed, relative.

 

[Portofino]

This does not show that actual moral “standards” changed. It does show that moral practices definitely changed and, perhaps, even that moral understanding among humans may have changed. However, it requires more than a mere observation to show that the actual standards have changed unless you assume the premise that standards are merely what is practiced.

That argument could quickly be dismantled, especially when, by your own admission, you claim that they have changed for the “better.” How would you know they were better except by appeal to a standard that transcends both situations and by which both could be assessed?

I intentionally put “better” in quotation marks, and clarified (in parentheses) that by “better” I meant “more humane” (i.e., more kindness, less cruelty). I don’t deny that there is an irreducible subjective element in my assessment of what is better, however.

Yet, even if we believe that the moral standards themselves are objective and unchanging (and that it is merely our understanding of that objective morality, that is imperfect or evolving), the question is, how is that objective morality discoverable? And how do we know we’re right?

As it is, we have a former Anglican archbishop (Desmond Tutu) who believes that objective morality demands equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. At the same time, we have other religious groups – including Roman Catholics – who believe that objective morality demands that equal marriage rights not be put in place, and that “same sex marriage” is a misnomer not merely in terms of human tradition (i.e., the traditional semantics of the word “marriage”) but in terms of objective moral truth.

Neither side is convinced by the other’s argument. Both allege that they are speaking in terms of what is objectively “right” and “wrong”, objectively “just” and “unjust.” Both sides, even, claim they are speaking on behalf of God’s will.

How does either side prove that they are correct, without begging the question? Without saying, “I’m right because: ‘I said so/my Church says so/my Scripture says so/Jesus says so (or meant to); or, it’s self-evident.’”