How can the main pain of hell be the separation from God?

[PJM]

My FRIEND,

What the error is in YOU [anyone unqualified] givinging THEIR opinion as if its fact; or for that matter even matters. PLEASE here me out here.

If we [anyone] actually HAD a right understanding of GOD this would be a “no-brainer”

Perhaps it is good to ASK just WHY it is humanity exist: [I expect books have been written on this]; BUT I’m going to explain it in two verses:

Isaiah 43: 7 & 21
[7] And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, and made him. & [21] This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise

WHAT THIS MEANS THEN IS THAT ALL SOULS THAT DO NOT ATTAIN HEAVEN HAVE MISSED THE VERY REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE

That my friend is why the PRIMARY [not the only] pain of hell is longing to actually be in the Divine presence; these souls have missed to opportunity for which they were Created by GOD.

God Bless and guide your path

 

[thistle]

Why does it logically follow that it would be torment to be separated from god?

If one feels such a purpose as strongly as we do on this life, those who do not believe (because they feel no such purpose) will feel no desire to be with god in the afterlife… or is there something in the theology that I’m unaware of?

I am guessing you are either an atheist or anti-Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only one established by Christ and he gave it authority in all matters of faith and morals. What you are asking about is a teaching of the Church backed by the authority of God.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Why does it logically follow that it would be torment to be separated from god?

If one feels such a purpose as strongly as we do on this life, those who do not believe (because they feel no such purpose) will feel no desire to be with god in the afterlife… or is there something in the theology that I’m unaware of?

I am guessing you are either an atheist or anti-Catholic. The Catholic Church is the only one established by Christ and he gave it authority in all matters of faith and morals. What you are asking about is a teaching of the Church backed by the authority of God.

So… just because of some perceived authority that allegedly god bestowed upon that church, we are supposed to gobble it up like sheep?
If that’s the case, what’s the purpose of having these forums?

God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

How would the Church know this?

I have no longing for any god.
I was created by my parents.
I think I’m alive… one can never be 100% sure this isn’t a simulation, but I’m not very fond of going down the solispist path…
And I’m just happy as anyone can be, depending on the circumstances.

 

[ahs]

(quoting thistle) God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

How would the Church know this?

Divine revelation by God Himself, and through logic, and theology.

I have no longing for any god.
I was created by my parents.
I think I’m alive… one can never be 100% sure this isn’t a simulation, but I’m not very fond of going down the solispist path…
And I’m just happy as anyone can be, depending on the circumstances.

And none of that makes God any less real, nor does it diminish the fact that man was created to be with Him. It sounds like you want to argue against there being a God. That’s well and good, but the original question presumes a God, and so the answers we are providing are in that light. If there is no God, then there is no hell, and there is no pain of being separated from Him, nor any fire to be concerned about…making the original question moot, or rather meaningless. But then, life itself would also be meaningless, and there would be no point at all in asking the question to begin with, because it simply doesn’t matter.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

(quoting thistle) God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

How would the Church know this?

Divine revelation by God Himself, and through logic, and theology.

But if the church as we understand it now was only established in the 4th century, how would they have access to that divine revelation?
Or are we to believe in all the succession since Peter, as it was decided at some point by I don’t know who?

pocaracas:

I have no longing for any god.
I was created by my parents.
I think I’m alive… one can never be 100% sure this isn’t a simulation, but I’m not very fond of going down the solispist path…
And I’m just happy as anyone can be, depending on the circumstances.

And none of that makes God any less real, nor does it diminish the fact that man was created to be with Him. It sounds like you want to argue against there being a God. That’s well and good, but the original question presumes a God, and so the answers we are providing are in that light. If there is no God, then there is no hell, and there is no pain of being separated from Him, nor any fire to be concerned about…making the original question moot, or rather meaningless. But then, life itself would also be meaningless, and there would be no point at all in asking the question to begin with, because it simply doesn’t matter.

I’m sorry for going off topic, but I’m just trying to delve into and understand some particular remarks I read… while providing my own point of view (why not?)

Also, no, I wasn’t arguing against there being a god… I was arguing against people feeling those things which, apparently, the RCC affirms. Possessing life and happiness, being created and longing for god. Because, If I don’t feels those things, then I’d wager most people don’t.
However, many do claim to do so, which then raises the two branches of questioning:

1. If that is god’s doing, why only a few feel it? (and before I hear anything about closed hearts and minds, do remember that people who have never heard of god also don’t feel it)
2. If it’s not god’s doing, what are those people feeling?

Finally, why do you say that life would be meaningless if there was no god? How does the existence of a god bring meaning to a life? What sort of meaning?

 

[ahs]

But if the church as we understand it now was only established in the 4th century…

The Church that is known today as “The Catholic Church”, or sometimes referred to as “Roman Catholicism” began with Christ, around 33AD…with the succession of Peter as Pope, and the succession of the office of the other Apostes, etc…as is attested by history.

I’m just trying to delve into and understand some particular remarks I read… while providing my own point of view (why not?)

All the remarks so far are made in light of the original post, and the fact that it is being asked of Catholics in regard to the Catholic doctrines. So, all the answers are based on what the Catholic Church teaches.

I was arguing against people feeling those things which, apparently, the RCC affirms. Possessing life and happiness, being created and longing for god. Because, If I don’t feels those things, then I’d wager most people don’t.

It’s not very logical to argue against what people feel, is it? But “being created for God” doesn’t require “feelings”; feelings have little, if anything to do with it. I’m not aware of a lack of longing for something equating to something isn’t real.

However, many do claim to do so, which then raises the two branches of questioning:
If that is god’s doing, why only a few feel it? (and before I hear anything about closed hearts and minds, do remember that people who have never heard of god also don’t feel it)
If it’s not god’s doing, what are those people feeling?

1. and 2. I don’t know, and I don’t know. I know many people who have expressed no longing for God. I have met many who have it. I personally have longed for God. I have also gone through periods of what I call a ‘darkness’ or ‘black night of the soul’. Either way, nothing I feel or lack in feeling can prove or disprove God. Logically, He can exist whether I feel for Him or not, and whether He has put a longing in my heart is not relevant to whether He exists…it’s only relevant to whether I think He’s fair or whether I think He’s got some other purpose in mind for me, by withholding such a longing. And all of that is moot to whether, according to Catholic doctrine, the main pain of Hell is separation from Him.

Finally, why do you say that life would be meaningless if there was no god? How does the existence of a god bring meaning to a life? What sort of meaning?

What meaning to life would there be without Him?

 

[Vico]

someone429:

Catholicism teaches that the main pain of hell is the separation from God. But it seems that the fire in hell is much more painful than the separation. So, how can the main pain of hell be the separation from God?

Punishment rather than pain: “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God” – Catechism

This declaration of punishment can be an objective statement. Is the person in hell aware of a lack of Beatific Vision? Is a person that has never tasted a food, know what is missed?

The pain of sense is less than the pain of loss.

Catholic Encylopedia

According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the former being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various “accidental” punishments.

• Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
• The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment.
• The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering.

Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[LilyM]

I think many of us have had the experience of throwing away a great opportunity - whether it be in love, a job or career, an investment opportunity or what have you - and the pain of regretting it deeply ever afterwards.

I think the souls in Hell will be most keenly aware of all the good they have lost in rejecting God, and this will be a source of torment for them.

 

[pocaracas]

The Church that is known today as “The Catholic Church”, or sometimes referred to as “Roman Catholicism” began with Christ, around 33AD…with the succession of Peter as Pope, and the succession of the office of the other Apostes, etc…as is attested by history.

Kindly show me that history…

All the remarks so far are made in light of the original post, and the fact that it is being asked of Catholics in regard to the Catholic doctrines. So, all the answers are based on what the Catholic Church teaches.

Don’t you think, if that was the case, one reply would have been enough?

It’s not very logical to argue against what people feel, is it? But “being created for God” doesn’t require “feelings”; feelings have little, if anything to do with it. I’m not aware of a lack of longing for something equating to something isn’t real.

I’m not aware that I was equating that.
If you read properly, maybe I was equating a lack of longing for something to The RCC might not be right.

1. and 2. I don’t know, and I don’t know. I know many people who have expressed no longing for God. I have met many who have it. I personally have longed for God.

Interesting… Do you suppose you would have longed for god if you had never in your life ever heard about god from other people/books?

I have also gone through periods of what I call a ‘darkness’ or ‘black night of the soul’. Either way, nothing I feel or lack in feeling can prove or disprove God. Logically, He can exist whether I feel for Him or not, and whether He has put a longing in my heart is not relevant to whether He exists…it’s only relevant to whether I think He’s fair or whether I think He’s got some other purpose in mind for me, by withholding such a longing. And all of that is moot to whether, according to Catholic doctrine, the main pain of Hell is separation from Him.

Why is it so important to you that one can’t poke into the details of things that support people’s conclusions regarding the pain of hell?

What meaning to life would there be without Him?

I guess that depends on what you consider “meaning”.
To live. To enjoy pleasurable things or events. To feel all the emotions we can. To do what we like. Most of us enjoy greatly bringing new life to this planet… some don’t…
Live and let live.

Like Monty Python said:
“Well, it’s nothing very special. Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.”

 

[ahs]

Kindly show me that history…

No. That’s a whole other topic, and the information is readily available if you look for it.

Don’t you think, if that was the case, one reply would have been enough?

Yep. But that’s the nature of public forums and regular people giving formal answers. We all like to respond, and some responses better represent the Catholic doctrine than others. Not all of us Catholics even know what the Church teaches ourselves on every topic…and so we like to explore and discuss it!

I’m not aware that I was equating that.
If you read properly, maybe I was equating a lack of longing for something to The RCC might not be right.

Which would also be beside the point. The question was about what the Church teaches. The answers given expressed, in varying degrees of accuracy and depth, what the Church teaches.

Interesting… Do you suppose you would have longed for god if you had never in your life ever heard about god from other people/books?

I do suppose that. But I do not presume that this would be the case for everyone.

Why is it so important to you that one can’t poke into the details of things that support people’s conclusions regarding the pain of hell?

If that were actually important to me, I would not be replying to you.

I guess that depends on what you consider “meaning”.

To live. To enjoy pleasurable things or events. To feel all the emotions we can. To do what we like. Most of us enjoy greatly bringing new life to this planet… some don’t…

Live and let live.

Like Monty Python said:

“Well, it’s nothing very special. Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.”

I suppose I see something deeper in “meaning”. My question, when doing my own searching, was “to what end” or “for what purpose”. Had someone told me that the meaning of life was “to live”, I would have asked , “live for what?”; “To enjoy things”, “what is joy?”; “Why do I need to feel emotions?”; “Why do we get joy out of bringing new life to a place, if there is nothing other than this place?” Those are the sorts of questions I asked.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Kindly show me that history…

No. That’s a whole other topic, and the information is readily available if you look for it.

I’ve looked (some time ago) and… for the first century (or 2), all we have is “church tradition”. A far cry from history…

Which would also be beside the point. The question was about what the Church teaches. The answers given expressed, in varying degrees of accuracy and depth, what the Church teaches.

You guys say the church teaches these things based on logic and theology.
I’m saying that maybe the church isn’t so trustworthy in how it reached its teachings… Am I allowed to?

I suppose I see something deeper in “meaning”. My question, when doing my own searching, was “to what end” or “for what purpose”. Had someone told me that the meaning of life was “to live”, I would have asked , “live for what?”; “To enjoy things”, “what is joy?”; “Why do I need to feel emotions?”; “Why do we get joy out of bringing new life to a place, if there is nothing other than this place?” Those are the sorts of questions I asked.

Ultimately, I suppose, life has the purpose of self-perpetuation.
For most of humanity, that will mean have children… for others it’s simply to be a part of a constructive and peaceful society… for others still, it is the construction of a society as they see it should be (and it doesn’t matter who gets left behind, for they’re building a better world - kinda like god with the flood).

With children, you get the purpose of raising them, making them fit for adulthood… and then keep helping them with their own children, if possible. That’s one of the main things to live for, I suppose.
“what is joy?” - a mostly pleasurable emotion.
“Why do I need to feel emotions?” - I don’t know… but most of us do feel them and put them to good use.
“Why do we get joy out of bringing new life to a place, if there is nothing other than this place?” - Why would the simple existence of some other place be the cause of the joy you feel?
If you want to get technical about it, our emotions seem to boil down to biochemical interactions between hormones and our brains. And we produce certain hormones in certain quantities when exposed to certain situations. Our brains produce this kind of loop, based on what they receive from the outside… but not only from the outside… some people get pleasure from their own intellectual achievements… sometimes, from memories.

 

[ahs]

I’ve looked (some time ago) and… for the first century (or 2), all we have is “church tradition”. A far cry from history…

So, the only history from the first century (or 2) is what the Church has, and has incorporated into its tradition?
I don’t think that’s true, but, it gives me all the more confidence that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church established by Christ.

You guys say the church teaches these things based on logic and theology.
I’m saying that maybe the church isn’t so trustworthy in how it reached its teachings… Am I allowed to?

…and Divine Revelation by God. You don’t need allowance from me or anyone else to disagree.

Ultimately, I suppose, life has the purpose of self-perpetuation.
…have children… be a part of a constructive and peaceful society… construction of a society as they see it should be…raising [children], making them fit for adulthood…helping them with their own children, if possible. That’s one of the main things to live for, I suppose…pleasurable emotion…good use…

Sure. But none of that tells me why any of that matters for people. What you described is no different than how I view cats or monkeys.
But wait, you said we can put emotions to “good use”. What do you mean by “good”?
And that is where this off-topic bit can fit back into the original question. If there is “good”, there is also the opposite of it. And the opposite of ultimate “good”, is where the OP’s question fits in.

So, what do you mean by “good”?

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

I’ve looked (some time ago) and… for the first century (or 2), all we have is “church tradition”. A far cry from history…

So, the only history from the first century (or 2) is what the Church has, and has incorporated into its tradition?
I don’t think that’s true, but, it gives me all the more confidence that the Catholic Church is indeed THE Church established by Christ.

The one concerning papal succession during that period, yes…

pocaracas:

You guys say the church teaches these things based on logic and theology.
I’m saying that maybe the church isn’t so trustworthy in how it reached its teachings… Am I allowed to?

…and Divine Revelation by God.

Why do I keep forgetting that one?..

pocaracas:

Ultimately, I suppose, life has the purpose of self-perpetuation.
…have children… be a part of a constructive and peaceful society… construction of a society as they see it should be…raising [children], making them fit for adulthood…helping them with their own children, if possible. That’s one of the main things to live for, I suppose…pleasurable emotion…good use…

Sure. But none of that tells me why any of that matters for people. What you described is no different than how I view cats or monkeys.
But wait, you said we can put emotions to “good use”. What do you mean by “good”?
And that is where this off-topic bit can fit back into the original question. If there is “good”, there is also the opposite of it. And the opposite of ultimate “good”, is where the OP’s question fits in.

So, what do you mean by “good”?

I’d say that… Good is that which is not bad…?
That which doesn’t produce (or minimizes) suffering.
That which promotes and/or leads to peace, health, or just some other positive aspect for as many people as possible.

I’m sure there are many more uses for “good”… and I doubt I could fit them all into this reply.

You did leave me curious… why did you add the qualifier “ultimate” to good, towards the end of your reply?
What would “ultimate good” be? Is there such a thing? Perhaps in a utopia…

 

[ahs]

You did leave me curious… why did you add the qualifier “ultimate” to good, towards the end of your reply?

What would “ultimate good” be? Is there such a thing? Perhaps in a utopia…

Because if something is “good”, then there must be a standard to measure it against, otherwise it’s just an opinion and has no real meaning. My opinion of good can be drastically different than yours, and without a standard to measure “good-ness”, neither of us would be right or wrong…just different. That standard to measure it would be the “best”, or what I call, “the ultimate good”.

 

[pocaracas]

Are you telling me that anything we measure must be measured against the most of that thing?

Is distance measured against the maximum distance possible?.. I thought it was against a convention - in most of the world, that would be the metre… and in a few corners, it’s the inch… There used to be many different regional conventions: remember the cubit?
Is time measured against the maximum span possible?.. I thought it was against a convention, the second. Used to be the day.

I think humanity developed as a social animal and our brains have developed some preference towards socially acceptable behaviors, while providing a displeasure for socially unacceptable behaviors… under a tribal/familial setting. What we consider good, is generally good for the society (where we live) and that ends up giving each of us a higher probability of survival with the lowest possible suffering.

 

[ahs]

Are you telling me that anything we measure must be measured against the most of that thing?

I don’t think I’m saying that. I’m saying that if you don’t measure it against what is truly good, objectively, (and I would say “the ultimate good”), then it really doesn’t mean anything because it’s just an opinion. My opinion of good can be drastically different than yours, and without a standard to measure “good-ness”, neither of us would be right or wrong…just different.
What standard for “good” would you measure against?

I think humanity developed as a social animal and our brains have developed some preference towards socially acceptable behaviors, while providing a displeasure for socially unacceptable behaviors… under a tribal/familial setting. What we consider good, is generally good for the society (where we live) and that ends up giving each of us a higher probability of survival with the lowest possible suffering.

Why is “socially acceptable” important, and can anything trump it? Slavery, for example, was socially acceptable in the South for a long time. Did that make owning a slave “good” in the South? Or was there some measure by which slavery could be measured against to say, “this is not good”? So, I think ‘being socially acceptable’ is irrelevant to whether something is “good”.
And how do we determine what is “good” for society where we live? Just that it increases survivability? That still doesn’t answer why survival of the species is important. Why should survival be important just because humans want the species to continue (which not ALL of them actually do).
And why is it good to not suffer? Can humans not profit any goodness from suffering? Discipline often involves suffering, and I find GREAT good in discipline, despite its suffering. Soldiers who died for my freedom suffered, and I find great good (freedom) in the suffering they did for me. So, I think suffering is not as important in determining what is “good”.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Are you telling me that anything we measure must be measured against the most of that thing?

I don’t think I’m saying that. I’m saying that if you don’t measure it against what is truly good, objectively, (and I would say “the ultimate good”), then it really doesn’t mean anything because it’s just an opinion. My opinion of good can be drastically different than yours, and without a standard to measure “good-ness”, neither of us would be right or wrong…just different.
What standard for “good” would you measure against?

Why must there be a standard?

pocaracas:

I think humanity developed as a social animal and our brains have developed some preference towards socially acceptable behaviors, while providing a displeasure for socially unacceptable behaviors… under a tribal/familial setting. What we consider good, is generally good for the society (where we live) and that ends up giving each of us a higher probability of survival with the lowest possible suffering.

Why is “socially acceptable” important, and can anything trump it? Slavery, for example, was socially acceptable in the South for a long time. Did that make owning a slave “good” in the South? Or was there some measure by which slavery could be measured against to say, “this is not good”? So, I think ‘being socially acceptable’ is irrelevant to whether something is “good”.

Slavery was acceptable for a long time in different places, not just your own South.
Ancient Greece, Biblical times Babylon and Israel and Egypt(?)… The Bible, the inspired word of God (right?), sets up rules on how to deal with slaves, so… was slavery condoned by god? if so, is it good?

To the society to which I belong, slavery is seen as bad, because it does cause suffering to the slaves, or to many of them. Even if some do think they have a good life, it is subject to the wishes and whims of their owners. No freedom to serve who they want. I think you’d largely agree… and yet, it seems to be considered “good” by that which you might be trying to claim to be “ultimate good”…

For slave owners, having slaves is generally good, as they have somewhat cheap labor… and a society where slavery is ok is basically led by those slave owners… so, historically, you end up having their point of view, rather than the point of view of the slaves.

Here we have two societies in which one thing is either good or bad… so, which is it?
(continued…)

 

[pocaracas]

And how do we determine what is “good” for society where we live? Just that it increases survivability? That still doesn’t answer why survival of the species is important. Why should survival be important just because humans want the species to continue (which not ALL of them actually do).

Yes, not all individuals the human species desire humanity to survive… hopefully, those are a great minority and will never be in a position to carry out any mass destruction… oh wait… 2 or 3 of those are already there… silly humans, empowering mediocrity…

I would personally like my children and, eventually, grandchildren to live their lives in peace and have their children and grandchildren and so on and so forth. I’m pretty sure most people feel the same. For that selfish goal of having my own genes survive, in a social species setting, I must be aware that I also need to help other individual’s genes to survive. Increased survivability automatically arises, unless those 2 or 3 idiots decide to be as stupid as all comedy acts portray them.

And why is it good to not suffer? Can humans not profit any goodness from suffering? Discipline often involves suffering, and I find GREAT good in discipline, despite its suffering. Soldiers who died for my freedom suffered, and I find great good (freedom) in the suffering they did for me. So, I think suffering is not as important in determining what is “good”.

I think you’ll find I wrote “minimize suffering”. Reality is not a utopia, so some suffering is to be expected, be it from diseases, or from conflict with other societies with different concepts of what is “good”, or from a million other causes.

I’m all for us having a global shared concept of good, so that such conflicts become a chapter on a history textbook, but we, as a species, are not there yet.
How can we help get there without forcing some weaker societies to comply with the stronger ones?

 

[ahs]

I’m all for us having a global shared concept of good,

…except you have nothing to measure it against, and therefore all you can ever hope for is your opinion being accepted as the norm, while others, with other opinions contrary to yours, are free to disagree and do whatever they want to whom they want, because in their mind, it is “good”.

That’s why I believe there must be a standard; because without one, all we have are opinions that are only relevant to ourselves. And we then have no moral basis to condemn slavery, or the holocaust…
(And no, slavery in the Bible is NOT the same as the slavery known in the US South. However, if it were, I contend that no one could make any moral case against it without some objective standard for what is “good”.)

And yes, I would say that God is the ultimate standard for “good”. And again, if anything God did seems un-good to you, you still have no objective argument against it without setting some standard, yourself. So, what is your standard for “good”?

Of course we all want good lives and peace for our children/families. But without some standard for “good”, then you can’t really make any case against someone who wants the opposite for your children/family, can you? No, not one that would carry any weight, because their opinion is just as relevant as yours when it comes to defining “good”.

How can we help get there [ having a shared concept of good ] without forcing some weaker societies to comply with the stronger ones?

By defining an objective standard for “good”. However, only with God is this possible. If there is no God, then there will never be an objective standard, because it will ALWAYS just be someone(s)’ opinion vs. someone else’s.

Which brings us 'round to the OP. In the Catholic view, the Christian theological view, God is the ultimate good, for which we were created. To be in an eternal separation from Him, Who is the supreme Goodness/Love/Justice/Mercy…and for Whom we were created, would be eternal torment. And that’s why the Church teaches what it teaches about the primary pains of hell.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

I’m all for us having a global shared concept of good,

…except you have nothing to measure it against, and therefore all you can ever hope for is your opinion being accepted as the norm, while others, with other opinions contrary to yours, are free to disagree and do whatever they want to whom they want, because in their mind, it is “good”.

I think I’m not making myself clear… let me try again.
It’s not “my” opinion, or “your” opinion that’s the measure… it’s the society that we are a part of that self-generates and ever evolves their concept of “good”.
A neat example is gun ownership: is it good to own a gun? In the US, many (if not most) people would say yes. In the UK, however, the grand majority would say no. This means that the shared perception of how good gun ownership is varies from region to region. In the US one thing is good, in the UK that thing is bad.
It’s always subjective to the society in which people live in, but, from the point of view of the individual, it’s as if it comes from an objective morality, a shared collective morality that no one in particular defined, nor can define.

(And no, slavery in the Bible is NOT the same as the slavery known in the US South. However, if it were, I contend that no one could make any moral case against it without some objective standard for what is “good”.)

Slavery is slavery: ownership of another human being for the purpose of labor.
I’m not defending if it’s good or bad, I’m just saying that it’s not outright outlawed by the “divine inspiration” that the bible writers had, so maybe, applying your “objective standard”, it’s actually good…?

So, what is your standard for “good”?

My standard is the standard from the society where I was raised. Late 20th century Europe.

But without some standard for “good”, then you can’t really make any case against someone who wants the opposite for your children/family, can you?

Good thing I and my children live in a society that shares the concept of good!

By defining an objective standard for “good”. However, only with God is this possible. If there is no God, then there will never be an objective standard, because it will ALWAYS just be someone(s)’ opinion vs. someone else’s.

Society’s standard is an approximate objective standard… whoever fails to meet the standard is judged by that society and possibly punished for the undesired behavior.

Which brings us 'round to the OP.

I understand what you say, but I still don’t see how you can say that it would be torment to be separated from god in the afterlife, if such a torment is far from felt during this life by those who do not abide by his rules.