Is eternal hellfire fair?

[cynic]

I suppose you have answered your own question then. Consider that there is something important to God about the idea of the willingness to “sacrifice” for others or Him as a demonstration of a viable love that will “stick” through eternity and be representative of who you really are as a unique entity.

I’d like to re-start the thread, if that’s okay.

How much of a sacrifice? Next time you go on holiday, will you try and evagelize every person you see on the street, the beach, wherever, or will you only talk to as few as you can ‘reasonably’ manage?

Will you spend every second of your (spare) time praying or reading scripture, or will you spend some of it watching T.V, or reading, other things? Isn’t there always something more you could be doing?

I don’t think God distinguishes why a person loves someone since love in the objective sense is accepting people as they are without over regard to what one expects in return. If your family happens to be ugly and unaffectionate - then it sounds to me like you are either recognizing something you can empathize with or are suffering to prevail in the face of difficult challenges. In either case it sounds like a labor of love to me.

You said that the reason hell will be such a torment is seperation from a being so lovable and perfect - the ultimate object of our desires. That’s a weird view of love. People care about others, without neccessarily enjoying their company or being entertained by them. It’s built into most people. This God however, doesn’t seem to be bound by what he requires of us towards each other, (and judges us for). “Thou hast not loved me, be gone!”

I don’t think its so much about basing our existence on the notion of pleasing him so much as it is is desiring to do well by him and trust him and have faith in him. I somehow imagine that the Creator God who made All would understand if someone was having a bad day and anxieties about paying bills to keep the roof over their head and happened to spend the entire day running around borrowing money or getting odd jobs to prevent his family from being evicted onto the streets rather than praying 24 hrs.
I really think God would be very pleased if more people just spoke to Him at least daily for 15 or 20 minutes.

What I meant was with regards spending all your spare moments in service to God, in gratitude for being created. Praying all day but neglecting family is not what was meant.

It might seem so for now but we know that Greater Good triumphs in this Cosmic struggle that we find ourselves a part of. It sounds to me like there is a glory so unimaginably better than we can conceive that none of the suffering we all experience will matter in the least on the other side - except for giving us a sense of participation and sharing in that glory. Does a baby recollect its discomfort in struggling in the womb after it is born? Is struggle and trial evil? I don’t think so. Gravity gives us a thing to pull against and a means by which to know which way is “up” and “down”. Similar is the notion of resistance to the temptation to sin - which itself is not evil except for in submitting in the act.The objective is eternal life.

The idea that evil is neccessary to make good apparent to us, as beings with free will, has so many problems. Not least that it’s a short step to saying that some souls need to be in hell, as an “example”.

The problem is not agreeing with God’s plan. Personally I think I can trust God Creator of All to do the right thing since He seems to be able to orchestrate quite a bit of the physical world we can see. How much more so heaven? What viable and plausible alternative to God is there? Self? I know myself better than that to trust “me”.

The viable alternative is that God (and Gods) are the creation of the human psyche, invented to give our lives meaning, and to avoid the inherent discomfort (and quite understably so) that any conscious being would have with just ‘ending’ at death - particulary with the idea of our relatives and those we care for just ‘ending’. It allows the possibility of an afterlife.

However to make it seem plausable, we can’t make our God too easy on us, because then it would obviously be a fiction. No, he has to judge, and the requirements must be difficult. That way the existence of life beyond the physical seems more likely, because who would want to believe in a judgemental God, right?

Perhaps during evolution, our brains grew and grew to the point where all this ‘spare’ grey matter developed, which initially might have been selected for because of the link between intelligence and survivability, but which also has the incidental effect making us conscious of our existence, and us attempting to find meaning within it.

God and religion might just be the result of that. It serves a purpose, both to our psychology, and for society (a moral code that makes society stable), That doesn’t make it real.

I’m not saying I believe this, but hasn’t it ever occurred to you? So many people could become (genuinely) religious, even with all the restriction on thought and behaviour, if it weren’t for this nagging doubt in the back of the mind.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’d like to re-start the thread, if that’s okay.

How much of a sacrifice?

No greater love has a man than he be willing to lay down his life for a friend. God does not call us all to be martyrs - but its good to know the maximum extend to what we can give. The other extreme would be apathy. I can say for certain what is too litttle.

You said that the reason hell will be such a torment is separation from a being so lovable and perfect - the ultimate object of our desires. That’s a weird view of love. …

I think you have a strange notion of the relative degrees of love. It seems to me a greater love might be loving one who is the more difficult to love. That integrates love in a sacrificial and suffering sort of way. Ironically, the greatest way to love Jesus is related through the expression of suffering to serve Jesus when it is not so easy to do so. Degree of suffering and sacrifice is a measure of love.

The idea that evil is neccessary to make good apparent to us, as beings with free will, has so many problems. Not least that it’s a short step to saying that some souls need to be in hell…

Well, we don’t have specific examples of those in hell to set an example but we have examples that tell us many go there and there will be cursing and gnashing of teeth. If you have a problem with that I’d recommend taking it up with God directly. So it seems that hell only creates a problem for those who see hell as a possible outcome to them. A little fear is a good thing - it helps keep us focused on staying alive.

The viable alternative is that God (and Gods) are the creation of the human psyche, invented to give our lives meaning, and to avoid the inherent discomfort (and quite understably so) that any conscious …

It would seem then that the human psyche is very consistent since the notion of hell and an afterlife have existed for a long time in history inside of and outside of Deist beliefs. I don’t know of a single society that survived long enough to make a recorded record of its sojurn on the planet that did not believe in some sort of after-life. Do you know of a nation of atheists that ever existed in human history?

However to make it seem plausable, we can’t make our God too easy on us, because then it would obviously be a fiction. No, he has to judge, and the requirements must be difficult. That way the existence of life beyond the physical seems more likely, because who would want to believe in a judgemental God, right?

Are you suggesting a mass inergenerational conspiracy by some primitive “do good-er” moralists to manipulate us all into being “good” through faked fables and myths just to force self-serving and barbaric humanity to get along peacefully? If so it would seem this would be premised on a sort of relative barbarism where manipulation of people’s beliefs for the greater good would be a lie where the ends justify the means. What would be the ultimate “ends” objective if nothing matters after we die?

It seems to me you are perhaps making the requirements more difficult than God does. Why is that?

Perhaps during evolution, our brains grew and grew to the point where all this ‘spare’ grey matter developed…

It could just as easily mean we have devolved to the point that everyone is insane and trying to convince his neighbor that he is more insane. If you want to consider all possibilities then consider the wisdom of taking pascal’s wager and placing all you own (your life) on the betting table with a pot that has nothing to win (no afterlife and the credible possibility that one may have to pay eternally in hell) verses the safer bet of possibly winning eternal bliss or lose nothing but one’s time. We all have to physically die - so to what ends do we get for betting on an outcome that bets against afterlife vs a shot at eternity? Maybe God made life as one big test to see who is a fool and who has a semblance of common sense. If I were God I’d not want to spend my eternity with a bunch of complete idiots who would take the attitude “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” over the attitude "eat, drink, help others, try to be good, and maybe we can fall in love with a hidden Creator who might let us be with Him forever. Seems like a minor inconvenience to extend a natural gratitude for life to give the benefit of the doubt to the Creator don’t you think?

God and religion might just be the result of that. It serves a purpose, both to our psychology, and for society (a moral code that makes society stable), That doesn’t make it real.

Why be concerned with making our society stable if nothing matters to us in the long run - all we are talking about is how long we get to enjoy our time and we won’t remember it anyway.

I’m not saying I believe this, but hasn’t it ever occurred to you? So many people could become (genuinely) religious, even with all the restriction on thought and behaviour, if it weren’t for this nagging doubt in the back of the mind.

Yeah, its a bummer that we don’t trust our natural instincts that there is something bigger than us and generate all this worry and doubt over things that can’t benefit us in the least. Doubt is just an irrational manifestation of mistrust in God and lack of acceptance that we have no choice but to trust God with very real reason to know its not safe to trust ourselves. If we can’t trust ourselves - why should we trust our musings and doubts? It can’t be changed by worrying. Worring over things we can’t change is irrational . Doubt in God while worry if he is real is doubly irrational

James

 

[cynic]

No greater love has a man than he be willing to lay down his life for a friend. God does not call us all to be martyrs - but its good to know the maximum extend to what we can give. The other extreme would be apathy. I can say for certain what is too litttle.

Sacrifice only has a tangible meaning when you put anothers *needs *ahead of your own. God needs nothing. This just comes down to him requiring that we prove we are good enough, which is hinted at in the rest of your post.

Well, we don’t have specific examples of those in hell to set an example but we have examples that tell us many go there and there will be cursing and gnashing of teeth.

So the possibility of souls being in hell by neccessity, as a warning to others, or perhaps just to manifest the contrast between good and evil, doesn’t bother you. A loving God does not deliberately create a Pharoah, an Esau just to provide an example of men of the ‘flesh’ (as opposed to the spirit). Yet he seems to have done so, Paul indicates that Esau was unable to repent (tears without sincerity), and condemns his descendants (I assume he means those who are like him in nature, not his literal descendants).

So it seems that hell only creates a problem for those who see hell as a possible outcome to them. A little fear is a good thing - it helps keep us focused on staying alive.

I could turn that around and say that some are happy to ignore inconsistencies/problems of a religion in the belief they are **not **going to hell.

It would seem then that the human psyche is very consistent since the notion of hell and an afterlife have existed for a long time in history inside of and outside of Deist beliefs. I don’t know of a single society that survived long enough to make a recorded record of its sojurn on the planet that did not believe in some sort of after-life. Do you know of a nation of atheists that ever existed in human history?

There is no uniform idea of heaven/hell. Many muslims believe that everyone gets to heaven eventually after being cleansed (purgatory). Buddhists and Hindu’s believe in re-incarnation (up or down) based on Karma. How can you ignore such obvious examples?

The fact that belief in the supernatural has been mostly universal could support an atheist position ie. that religion is the invention of the mind in order to escape from the quite shocking realisation that we might just ‘end’ at death. Do you want to believe in nothing after death? No? Do I want to? Hell no. Does anyone want to?

Doesn’t it seem likely then that religion, although strict in its requirements over behaviour, is basically about what we want?

Are you suggesting a mass inergenerational conspiracy by some primitive “do good-er” moralists to manipulate us all into being “good” through faked fables and myths just to force self-serving and barbaric humanity to get along peacefully? If so it would seem this would be premised on a sort of relative barbarism where manipulation of people’s beliefs for the greater good would be a lie where the ends justify the means. What would be the ultimate “ends” objective if nothing matters after we die?

I’m saying that families, tribes and society require a degree of selfless behaviour to survive and continue (eg monogamy, care of children, selfless acts the increase a groups over all ‘fitness’). Imbueing these rules with a kind of supernatural authority ensures that people feel compelled to act in ways that aren’t just of benefit to themselves.

It could just as easily mean we have devolved to the point that everyone is insane and trying to convince his neighbor that he is more insane.

Er, an increasing brain size has been pretty much proven through hominid skeletal remains, unless you think the evidence for evolution is a load of rubbish

If you want to consider all possibilities then consider the wisdom of taking pascal’s wager and placing all you own (your life) on the betting table with a pot that has nothing to win (no afterlife and the credible possibility that one may have to pay eternally in hell) verses the safer bet of possibly winning eternal bliss or lose nothing but one’s time. We all have to physically die - so to what ends do we get for betting on an outcome that bets against afterlife vs a shot at eternity?

So we base our whole minds around something just *in case *it’s true.

Why be concerned with making our society stable if nothing matters to us in the long run - all we are talking about is how long we get to enjoy our time and we won’t remember it anyway.

That’s a separate issue, sounds like you think we should believe in a God, rather than being genuinely interested in what seems more likely to be real.

Doubt is just an irrational manifestation of mistrust in God and lack of acceptance that we have no choice but to trust God with very real reason to know its not safe to trust ourselves. If we can’t trust ourselves - why should we trust our musings and doubts? It can’t be changed by worrying. Worring over things we can’t change is irrational . Doubt in God while worry if he is real is doubly irrational

So human musings are tainted by sin, and that’s how you and yours explain non-belief. Belief in the supernatural, however is intuitive and to be trusted.Are you open the possibility of something other than what you believe?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Sacrifice only has a tangible meaning when you put anothers *needs *ahead of your own. God needs nothing. This just comes down to him requiring that we prove we are good enough, which is hinted at in the rest of your post.

Says who? Not that I disagree with you since sacrifice is what Christian teaching is - to sacrifice for a greater good. But its a semantic shift to conjecture that only tangible meaning is relevant. Relevant to who or what? You appeal to a greater good without defining what that tangible thing is.

So the possibility of souls being in hell by neccessity, as a warning to others, or perhaps just to manifest the contrast between good and evil, doesn’t bother you. A loving God does not deliberately create a Pharoah, an Esau just to provide an example of men of the ‘flesh’ (as opposed to the spirit). Yet he seems to have done so, Paul indicates that Esau was unable to repent (tears without sincerity), and condemns his descendants (I assume he means those who are like him in nature, not his literal descendants).

What good would it have to worry about something if it is not true or if its nothing I can change? Worrying in either case is irrational and serves no tangible purpose other than cause stress and harm unless you are suggesting stress adaptation is good in that it causes us to shift our worry to something else. Why worry what Christians believe if you believe it does not have any bearing on you? You seem to be more displeased with the way that God is said to be rather on the notion that He might really exist. Which is the case?

I could turn that around and say that some are happy to ignore inconsistencies/problems of a religion in the belief they are **not **going to hell.

OK - you can do that. Why does someone else’s’ happiness impinge on what you want to believe? Why have anxiety over it or worry? No one is forcing you to believe what Christians believe. In your beliefs you are only accountable to self. If it turns out your beliefs are wrong - then you are accountable to God or someone other than yourself. Why worry about solving “problems”? There is much evidence of non-stochastic and chaotic processes in nature that are non-linear and problematic only because we can’t exploit them. But who is to say problems are really problems if they don’t impinge on everyone universally? I’d say if you don’t like the way the Universe is defined that you take it up with God or solve your problems you find with it in the remaining time you have here. Do you imagine everyone agrees with you that things you call problems are a problem for them?

There is no uniform idea of heaven/hell. Many muslims believe that everyone gets to heaven eventually after being cleansed (purgatory). Buddhists and Hindu’s believe in re-incarnation (up or down) based on Karma. How can you ignore such obvious examples?

What does uniformity have to do with anything? The example I mentioned had nothing to do with a concept of homogeneity of belief in heaven or hell but rather that NO societies were ever formed (to my knowledge anyway) without some notion of an afterlife. Atheists are an anomaly and have never naturally occurred in society in large enough numbers to form their own societies. We can assume therefor that belief in the afterlife is a unifying principal necessary for survival. To what objective purpose would society want to go counter to the lesson of history and assume belief in its opposite sustains survival? I think you are trying to invent new problems again that no one has asked you to solve.

The fact that belief in the supernatural has been mostly universal could support an atheist position ie. that religion is the invention of the mind in order to escape from the quite shocking realisation that we might just ‘end’ at death. Do you want to believe in nothing after death? No? Do I want to? Hell no. Does anyone want to?

Doesn’t it seem likely then that religion, although strict in its requirements over behaviour, is basically about what we want?

So, are you asserting that atheists by going counter culture as contrarians are revealing some sort of salvific information that will liberate us and improve our lives? Do you think the experiment warrants the risk to presumably millions of years of evolution? Why now? Why you? Are you more enlightened than others?

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[Continued from above]

And who is to say that we don’t have a created nature to desire for things that are more than we are as a motivation to compel us to attain a greater good? Natural instinct is a principal we see all the time in nature’s creatures. The gravity and natural hunger and thirst is decidedly toward compelling us to work to feed ourselves and to grow and prolong life. It would be an irrational system if it was all for nought and nothing benefited by our time here. I work to an assumption of a rational system. If its not - then nothing matters anyway. Is wanting something a marker for error? If so why do you want to change people’s minds about believing in God? Inconsistency seems to be both a virtue and a problem for you.

I’m saying that families, tribes and society require a degree of selfless behaviour to survive and continue (eg monogamy, care of children, selfless acts the increase a groups over all ‘fitness’). Imbueing these rules with a kind of supernatural authority ensures that people feel compelled to act in ways that aren’t just of benefit to themselves.

No they don’t. A few dictators can easily force people to cooperate by force just to survive without any regard to selflessness for the good of their own survival. Slavery is not a high form of life but the alternative of oblivion seems to be the worst alternative. The club, knife, or stone, or even compelling force of reason through spoken word could be just as compelling as an imbueing of a myth of supernatural authority. What if there really is a supernatural authority and you are on the wrong side of it?

Er, an increasing brain size has been pretty much proven through hominid skeletal remains, unless you think the evidence for evolution is a load of rubbish

I am going to adopt your contrarian perspective here and say that expanding brains disproves Darwinian theory. The brain should be becoming more dense and more neurologically efficient and getting smaller to reduce the energy and volumetric demands on the human economy of physiology.

So we base our whole minds around something just *in case *it’s true.

You asked us to consider contrarian views I am asking you to access the wisdom in betting against a possibility of a great good while holding to a bet that at best leaves you busted with nothing to take away and at worse puts you in jail for eternity.

That’s a separate issue, sounds like you think we should believe in a God, rather than being genuinely interested in what seems more likely to be real.

Just before you were lampooning a probability and risk-reward approach to making decisions and now you want us to play roulette and gamble our life on a pot with no way to win, nothing to gain and just to play for entertainment purposes. Seems like a pretty boring kind of entertainmen if there is no prize or interesting possibilities. It seems irrational to me as well as inconsistent. This is problem you should think about solving.

So human musings are tainted by sin, and that’s how you and yours explain non-belief. Belief in the supernatural, however is intuitive and to be trusted.Are you open the possibility of something other than what you believe?

I am open to the possibility that there is something bigger and better than me is out there. If not then it does not matter. Are you suggesting I should lower my expectations to something you believe? For what purpose? Why? And what are your credentials that I should desire less as more superior? Again - its an irrational position and an unqualified one at that. There is no evidence in all of human history that tells us any society that thought like you ever existed or was ever remembered. In either case - its not a compelling story.

James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Some Christians believe hell to be different for everybody, and that would mean it’s set for all time by the sole criterion of this life (life expectancy 65 to 75 years).

(1) If free will is a defining characteristic of being human, and hell is populated by humans of course, wouldn’t it be possible for the damned to repent? If so, could they then be saved?

(2.a) What about those who have never heard about the gospel? What does it mean that Jesus is the only way?

(2.b) If Muslims have been indoctinated that Jesus is not the way but only one more prophet before the definitive prophet, and therefore does not accept JC as the way, the truth and the life, is this Muslim repsonsible for not accepting JC? After all, he was indoctrinated to do so.

(3) If hell is eternal, it is illimited. This life is temporary, thus illimited. The balance of seems to be tipping awkwardly here. Thoughts?

I think this a bit like asking, “Is it fair that water is wet ?” - to be wet, is intrinsic in the nature of water; whatever else water may be, it is wet thing.​

Damnation is instrinsic to eternal life without God; in the very nature of things, it cannot be pleasant. Hell may be simply another name for eternal life without God. It is “for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25) - man has no business to be there; it is not intended for us. If we go there, we are committing a trespass, for Heaven is our true native land.

 

[vince70]

I can agree with Hell, yes, I can agree with eternal seperation from God, yes, no problem there. It’s just how you guys claim what hell IS that sounds ludicrous.

So would it be nicer to say that hell is a happy wonderland but it just doesn’t have God there? Unfortunately, the world is going down a path of continually redefining what sin is and each day sin is becoming more acceptable. This is the great evil in the world today and many are following it.

How do we know for SURE what is the truth? Because a church says so? Because an individual says so? Catholics and Greek Orthodoxs bitterly argue all the time. Catholics and educated Protestants argue about the Church Fathers all the time. Moslems say we’re ALL wrong. The Jews that the Saviour hasn’t come. Everyone has their so called evidences to claim their point. HOW DO WE KNOW?

It confuses me greatly, all the arguments.

Simply study the facts and you will see the truth. Jesus said that “I am the way, the truth and the life”. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

 

[Nickkname]

Well, let’s see…

• God is love
• Love is the means of salvation
• Mortal sin cuts man off from love
• Hence mortal sin causes man to separate himself from God (that is, by committing mortal sin man chooses to separate himself from God)
• Hell is the state of separation from God
• Should man persists in his sin, he will go to hell (that is, he will choose hell over salvation)
• So even if God did offer the damned salvation, they wouldn’t want it

Is hell fair? I’d say YES!

 

[reen12]

Is eternal hellfire fair?

Of course not. Otherwise, we’d be dealing with a
deity with self-control issues.

Some members of Judaism hold that - those souls,
who were truly wicked, and who did great harm -
will be extinguised by God.No trace of them will remain.
This is both just and merciful.

It’s one of the reasons that I do not accept Jesus
as a God/man. Talking of ‘flames that never quench.’

Human beings work themselves to near exhaustion,
trying to relieve the terrible suffering of a burn victim.
Are men, then, more merciful than God is?

reen

 

[sugarontharim]

The transgression is immense since in the face of a free gift of life we dishonored God’s trust that we would out of natural gratitude use that free gift in a way that honors Him as creator. If God offers through the creative act of life an opportunity for eternal life and the only criteria is we respect, honor and love God for being so kind to give us life and the opportunity for eternal bliss then to reject that offer necessitates a justice that is balanced in the same degree in both directions - acceptance and rejection.

That is assuming that we are grateful for our lives. If we absolutely hated our lives with a passion to the point that we wished that we never existed, it would be kind of hard to respect and love God.