Hell

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Simon your reasoning is flawed like a child’s reasoning. How old are you? You think you will be unhappy in heaven because there isn’t any unhappiness. Maybe you’ll be happy in hell because there isn’t any happiness.
I think you’ve had life too easy. Personally I’m ready for some rest and happiness. This life is contrast enough.

 

[Bezant]

Two explanations are usually given:

1. A sin is more serious depending on who the sin is against. For example, it is a sin to kill a dog without justification. But it is a greater sin to kill a man without justification. When one sins against God, one sins against an infinitely good being. So it is proper that the punishment for the sin should be infinite if it is not repented.

But if the sinner is finite, though, why shouldn’t the punishment be finite?

1. Second, considering that hell is a matter of separation from God, the damned while they are in hell are accruing further punishment by continuing to reject God.

For example, suppose a man commits a crime and goes to jail. Suppose he commits further crimes while in jail. Doing so, he is sentenced to further punishment. Maybe hell is like this. A person goes to hell, but continues to commit the sin of rejecting God. Hence he continues to accrue further punishment.

I should make one, note, this assumes that hell is a matter of punishment that God imposes. A lot of people would say that hell should be understood not only as punishment, but as a matter of the natural consequences of separating oneself from God. (Like a diver cutting his own breathing tube). As one continues to be separated from God by his own free choice, he continues to suffer because of that separation.

If that rejection of God is continuous, even after death in hell, then repentance is impossible or, at least useless. Therefore, is this continuous separation really a free choice, if one cannot repent in hell?

 

[danserr]

Well, first of all, eternal happiness is an incoherent concept. If your entire conscious experience is nothing but perfect happiness layered upon perfect happiness every moment for all eternity, the whole concept of happiness loses any real meaning. This is what I hear whenever somebody asks why a benevolent God could ever let such horrible things (natural disasters, etc) happen, and the answer is surprisingly cogent: We need life to be occasionally difficult and unpleasant in order to truly appreciate what happiness and joy actually are. Now, nevermind that I think wiping out an entire city with a tidal wave before 9am is going a bit too far to illustrate that point - this argument actually makes some sort of sense. But unfortunately, it also makes just as much sense when you map it onto the afterlife. And that’s a problem with Heaven that simply goes unacknowledged by Believers. The only way Heaven could be a state of perfect, eternal happiness is if every trace of the individual - free will, personality, etc. - is stripped away. It will not be the case that Heaven isn’t ever boring or unpleasant - you will simply lose the freedom or the ability to know the difference.

If that isn’t reason enough to pass on Heaven, you might consider that, far from being advertised as a state of pure, unending bliss, it’s actually offered as a state of pure, eternal servility - endless praise and thanks for the Creator. Again, perhaps a fundamentalist view, and one that falls victim to the same trap as the gooey version of Paradise suggested above, but one that doesn’t fall victim (as much) to the loose double-talk of its more fuzzy, ingratiating cousin-theory. The fundamentalist tells you straight out that you are God’s eternal property, and you shall forever praise and thank him for that gift. Or forever burn in everlasting fire.

So to answer your question - what do I want? The glib answer is, “Make me an offer.” Given that I believe in neither heaven, nor hell, nor God, my assumption is that death is final - that my consciousness will return to the oblivion pool where it resided for nearly 14 billion years before I was born. This knowledge doesn’t make me particularly happy - but it’s an easy choice to make, given the alternatives. But if you’ve got something better A, B, or C, I’m all ears.

I’m not sure you understand what “incoherent” means. Incoherent mean contradictory, like a married bachelor. There is nothing contradictory about the notion of eternal happiness. Second, I’ve told you before, even if I granted the need for a contrast with happiness to appreciate it (which I don’t necessarily, there are far better answers to the problem of evil), then the contrast between heaven and sufferings endured on earth would be enough.

And you still have no understanding that praise and submission (to the proper person) is not a bad thing. On the contrary, your implicit suggestion that submission or service is a bad thing is an excellent example of hell. Milton’s Satan said “better reign in hell than serve in heaven.” Imagine the conflict that would (and does) result from such a view, even on earth. And praise, of course, is simply the proper response to a thing that is praiseworthy. Even on earth, you see a great artwork, a landscape, a beautiful woman, and you just want to praise it (or her). You recognize that some things are simply objectively worthy of praise. So is God.

Buck is right. You don’t want eternal happiness. You don’t want eternal misery, and you rightly can’t think of another possibility. You are like a diver cutting his own breathing tube who demands, “well I don’t want to die, and I don’t want to live, give me a third option.”

 

[Pitcharan]

…I don’t beleive people freely choose hell. They choose to do what they want to do, and by doing so may end up in hell one day. …:

God affords all humans a foretaste of heaven and hell as natural consequences of their chosen actions. So, the person who goes to hell is one who has had every opportunity to know that he/she was heading for it and was in a position to freely choose to change course but did not.

 

[danserr]

1). But if the sinner is finite, though, why shouldn’t the punishment be finite?

2). If that rejection of God is continuous, even after death in hell, then repentance is impossible or, at least useless. Therefore, is this continuous separation really a free choice, if one cannot repent in hell?

1). Because the sin was of infinite gravity. Like I said, sins are more serious depending on who one sins against. A sin against a man is more important than a sin against a dog, and a sin against a dog is more serious than a sin against a mouse. Likewise, a sin against an infinite God is a sin of infinite seriousness *if *it is not repented. So, consequently, it is right that the punishment should be infinite. It is the seriousness of the sin that determines the punishment (as we accept in law today, where the penalty is connected to the seriousness of the crime).

2). No, I think the separation is a free choice, it just depends whether you think that it a choice made a). at the moment of/after death when one chooses to be eternally separate from God, or else b). that the choice is continually made while one is in hell. According to b. it is theoretically possible that a person could repent and be forgiven, they simply do not want to do so. Hence, they continue to reject God and accrue punishment for that.

 

[ASimon]

Well, we are all sorry to disappoint you then. Deep philosophical discussions on issues you can’t change or control are pointless In the end, you’ll be in Heaven or Hell.

You can claim that isn’t what you want, but the reality is you don’t know what you are talking about and creating false notions and applying human concepts to jopy in Heaven. To say Heaven would not be great because you lost the human ability to know the difference between pain and happiness is 1) a human mindset and 2) false.

If you don’t believe God exists, debating how Heaven could be pleasant is way down the line and beyond the person’s grasp. You can’t fathom God or His presence or esitence, and yet you want to debate what it would be like to spend eternity with Him, despite not acknowledging Him at all? It is likely teaching calculus to someone who can’t add. Truly a pointless exercise.

“A human mindset” is precisely what you’re using to characterize heaven as this haven of eternal bliss. The only difference between you and I is that your characterization is wholly superficial and ignores its own logical consequences. Eternal happiness doesn’t make sense, not if the word ‘happiness’ is to have any real meaning. I have to say, it’s always cute to be told that my "human mentality’ is insufficient to understand God’s morality or his wisdom. Nevermind that this same human mentality has never stopped my fellow Christian humans from presuming to know these matters, and in great detail.

danserr:

Buck is right. You don’t want eternal happiness. You don’t want eternal misery, and you rightly can’t think of another possibility. You are like a diver cutting his own breathing tube who demands, “well I don’t want to die, and I don’t want to live, give me a third option.”

I can imagine any number of hypothetical third options. But I’m told, first, that I can’t have any of those, and second, that God is “generous” for sending people to hell. If Heaven and Hell are really all there is - that’s fine. But please show some spine and admit that hell is where God sends you when he stops loving you.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

ASimon said:

But please show some spine and admit that hell is where God sends you when he stops loving you.

The souls in hell don’t suffer as much as they deserve because of God’s mercy. This bothers them too.

Who stops loving whom? God knew you and loved you from before he made the heavns and the earth. I think you are the one who is failing.

 

[maplebug55]

ASimon said:

The souls in hell don’t suffer as much as they deserve because of God’s mercy.

Really? so there is no nashing of teeth and rotting worms?

 

[maplebug55]

A Simon, even though I am not athiest, I respect your right to state your beliefs and opinions.

 

[ASimon]

The souls in hell don’t suffer as much as they deserve because of God’s mercy. This bothers them too.

Serious question - are you making this up as you go along? Is this the kind of stuff you have to tell yourself to find reasons to praise your Creator? That you can’t just acknowledge the system is put in place where people who follow the rules earn an eternal paradise, while those who don’t are denied God’s love forever and burn in everlasting fire? This is biblically supported theology. Instead, you have to tie yourself up in knots to assert that God’s mercy protects the damned souls from suffering as much as they normally would. Nevermind that God could save the damned souls outright - to square that little issue, you need to believe the damned want to be damned (even as they’re being tortured in the lake of fire), and that God is only giving them what they want (his capacity for Love being so vast).

Are the fundamentals of your theology so distasteful to you that you need to layer on the frosting so that it will all go down easier?

 

[danserr]

Serious question - are you making this up as you go along? Is this the kind of stuff you have to tell yourself to find reasons to praise your Creator? That you can’t just acknowledge the system is put in place where people who follow the rules earn an eternal paradise, while those who don’t are denied God’s love forever and burn in everlasting fire? This is biblically supported theology. Instead, you have to tie yourself up in knots to assert that God’s mercy protects the damned souls from suffering as much as they normally would. Nevermind that God could save the damned souls outright - to square that little issue, you need to believe the damned want to be damned (even as they’re being tortured in the lake of fire), and that God is only giving them what they want (his capacity for Love being so vast).

Are the fundamentals of your theology so distasteful to you that you need to layer on the frosting so that it will all go down easier?

Simon, if I understood atheism as poorly as you understand Catholicism, I wouldn’t be so obvious about it.

How could God possibly save the damned outright? Christianity is not about following a bunch of rules and if you follow enough you go to heaven, if you don’t you go to the other place. Christianity is about coming into a loving relationship with God. To do so is heaven itself, not only now, but after death. To reject this loving relationship will be hell, just like a diver who rejects the air from his breathing tube. God can’t force people to love Him, he has done everything he could to cause people to enter that loving relationship, including people suffering and dying for them, but in the end, if they reject Him, he has to respect their free will. (Since it is only that free will that allow them to enter a loving relationship with Him).

 

[ASimon]

Simon, if I understood atheism as poorly as you understand Catholicism, I wouldn’t be so obvious about it.

How could God possibly save the damned outright? Christianity is not about following a bunch of rules and if you follow enough you go to heaven, if you don’t you go to the other place. Christianity is about coming into a loving relationship with God. To do so is heaven itself, not only now, but after death. To reject this loving relationship will be hell, just like a diver who rejects the air from his breathing tube. God can’t force people to love Him, he has done everything he could to cause people to enter that loving relationship, including people suffering and dying for them, but in the end, if they reject Him, he has to respect their free will. (Since it is only that free will that allow them to enter a loving relationship with Him).

Again - a complete rejection of even the most basic tenants of your supposed theology, not to mention logic itself.

So, if heaven is coming into a loving relationship with God, I presume you’re effectively in Heaven right now (albeit, on Earth). And I, having rejected any such relationship as trivial (at best) or immoral (at worst), am currently in Hell on Earth. Hate to break it to you, friend, but if this is Hell, I would consider keeping a summer home here.

So, one day we will die, and then what? If Heaven and Hell are so defined as having/rejecting a loving relationship with God, and given my experiences having lived in rejection of this God’s love, on what basis would I even consider changing my ways? Are Heaven and Hell transitory planes of existence? One they’ve died, can someone change their mind about God, and either accept or reject the loving relationship? You seem to be implying that they can. People have free will, after all…

I don’t, for a second, believe that you consider your theology so toothless. I think you’re only presenting this wishy-washy version of God and Christianity to mask the hard realities of your faith that you find so troubling. I wish you’d stop doing this. I don’t find them nearly so troubling. In fact, I always find it rather refreshing to speak to Christians who think Matthew 25:41 means exactly what it says - and isn’t some squirrelly metaphor to illustrate God’s love for us an respect for our free will.

 

[danserr]

Again - a complete rejection of even the most basic tenants of your supposed theology, not to mention logic itself.

Does it occur to you that I might, just might, have a better understanding of my own faith than you do? What theology degree do you have or books have you read that make you think you understand my religion better than I do?

I don’t, for a second, believe that you consider your theology so toothless. I think you’re only presenting this wishy-washy version of God and Christianity to mask the hard realities of your faith that you find so troubling.

The fact that you considerr toothless the idea of eternal separation from God shows that you have no appreciation of what separation from God entails. It is for people like you who are able to understand this that scripture uses metaphorical language on hell. Hell is incredibly miserable. A human being has separated themself from the source of all goodness and joy and the result is hell. How could it not be? Hell is tremendous suffering, but it is the suffering of separation from this goodness. Since, people like you have a hard time understanding this suffering, though, scripture uses metaphors to help describe what hell really is very bad. And it is.

So, one day we will die, and then what? If Heaven and Hell are so defined as having/rejecting a loving relationship with God, and given my experiences having lived in rejection of this God’s love, on what basis would I even consider changing my ways? Are Heaven and Hell transitory planes of existence? One they’ve died, can someone change their mind about God, and either accept or reject the loving relationship? You seem to be implying that they can. People have free will, after all…

So why is separation from God now not hell? That is easy to answer, you reject God now, but are not in total misery because you still have a body and the interaction with the pleasures of the world. After death, you will not have this. There will only be your soul alone, whatever you have made of it, standing before God, having come into a loving relationship with him or not.

If you have entered into a loving relationship with Him, then you will enjoy eternal happiness with Him. If you reject this goodness and eternal happiness, then you will be shut up alone forever with your rejection of that goodness. The result will be hell.

Can people change their minds after death? An interesting question actually. I suspect not, because I think after death people will see their soul as it has become, and not want to change. If they did, though, then of course God would accept them.