A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Philosophical opinions on Hell:
Let us begin by defining and describing Hell. What is it?
Let us begin by defining and describing Hell. What is it?
- Status
S
Saul.Tentmaker
Guest
Hell is a place of eternal punishment, punishment rendered for an act that has caused an infinite offense in the order of Justice.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
how can a finite act cause an infinite offense? because God is infinite and he is infinitely sore about what a guy did? it makes no sense. why cant he just let it slide?
C
Caesar
Guest
Hell is self-imposed punishment. To be saved one must die in a State of Grace, that is a state without mortal sin. By being in a State of Sin, in life one is already spiritually dead. In physically death this state becomes permament.
Sin is actually infinite, unless one seeks absolution.
S
Saul.Tentmaker
Guest
Objection 1. It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isaiah 27:8): “In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it.” Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment.
Reply to Objection 1. Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life–sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God’s eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the “wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever.”
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-I, Q. 87, Art. 3)
Reply to Objection 1. Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life–sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God’s eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the “wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever.”
(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-I, Q. 87, Art. 3)
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
extremely very few people would impose eternal torture upon their own selves.
how should ‘sin’ be defined?
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Agreed. Its not about the duration, its about the severity.
note: life imprisonment and death does not include torture. hell includes both isolation & torture.
- now its saying that one must be punished according to duration: the person had sinned for the duration of his earthly life, therefore his soul must be punished for the duration of its afterlife…which is eternity. no sense.
- its also suggesting punishment for what a person is capable of doing, not for what the person actually did: if the person had sinned for the duration of his earthly life, therefore he would sin for the duration of his afterlife. no sense.
a. our hormones: causes for lust & aggression.
b. our fears for instability: causes for greed.
c. our flawed upbringing: causes for bias & discrimination.
d. our limited understanding: causes for conflict.
etc. therefore human sin is as much the responsibility of the creator as that of the created.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
No such thing as a philosophical argument for hell unless it is faith based (a concept you cannot discuss).
From a faith based point there must be a hell if there is a heaven.
J
john_doran
Guest
it is eternal separation from god.
R
ricmat
Guest
Whenever this subject comes up, I recommend the book by CS Lewis - “The Great Divorce”.
Your library probably has it. It is a short read (2 hours or less) but answers in a parable format What is Hell, What is Heaven, and Why do People actually choose Hell.
If I’ve already recommended it to Agnos - sorry!!
Your library probably has it. It is a short read (2 hours or less) but answers in a parable format What is Hell, What is Heaven, and Why do People actually choose Hell.
If I’ve already recommended it to Agnos - sorry!!
N
Nino
Guest
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
can you share with us what youve learned about this? Why would anyone choose hell? I dont get it.
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
There are a good number of people who make a very conscious decision here on earth to live a life quite apart from God.
Hell is where God finally honours that decision.
Hell is where God finally honours that decision.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
The woman who aborts her baby chooses hell. She can tell you why…can you share with us what youve learned about this? Why would anyone choose hell? I dont get it.
“I can’t afford a baby”
“I don’t want to be fat in the Bahamas during vacation”
“I want our wedding to be just us”.
I don’t ‘get it’ either.
N
Nino
Guest
Hell is like the sitcom Cheers…a room full of losers all locked in to gether …for ever…imagine the hell of it all…no one is truthful, all are schemers,liars,wise guys and have bad breath!..while the opposite,heaven is a garden full of like minded nice folk…gentle,great sense of humor,honest,smile a lot,and full of just caring…I will take Heaven!..years ago the young fellas in my outfit would on pay day go to the local burg and drink and go to the cat house…they would then stumble back to the barracks…with the beginning of a disease,less money in their pockets and a dulled conscience…amen and amen…they were taken by satan by its false promises…sad…one by one most of my buddies learned to not do this…but some just followed the evil one to its logical conclusion…despair…and ruin…and …Nino
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Are you just referring to those catholics who, though they believe in God, chooses to do evil things that would land them in hell.
Or are you also referring to those in other beliefs who has a clean conscience but in all honesty could not find it reasonable to believe in Jesus.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
perhaps she was hoping that God would forgive her for that sin. i dont think she was really seeking hell there.
W
Wandered_Off
Guest
When believers talk about what gets people thrown into Hell, it almost invariably involves an alleged choice that I’m beginning to think many people never actually made.
If an atheist says that she doesn’t believe in God, that looks very different to me from saying that she believes in God, she believes that Jesus is the savior, she believes accepting Jesus as such is the only way to get eternal bliss with God, but knowing all this she says, "No thanks. I’d rather spend all eternity suffering." :ehh: Similarly, if a Muslim says “I believe in Allah”, he is not saying that he does not want a personal relationship with the God of the Bible. In fact, he believes the “two” Gods are the same (rightly or wrongly). He just, according to some, got the “wrong” messenger.
My guess is that the vast majority of unbelievers, if actually given the choice in a convincing way, would jump at the chance to have a personal relationship with the true creator of the universe. What could be cooler?
If you didn’t believe the offer ever was legitimate in the first place, how can you be said to have willfully chosen one of the options within that offer? In one case, you’re accepting the legitimacy of a choice and selecting one of the options. In the other case, you’re (mistakenly?) thinking no actual choice has been offered. Those are not identical positions, not even close. Our motives reveal the difference. Is God looking there or not? It comes down to the substance versus the format. Are we penalized for rejecting the format when we might not have rejected the substance? For being wrong about whether such a choice exists?
Not assenting to the credibility of a choice is very different from active acceptance or rejection of one of the options within an acknowledged choice - especially to someone who knows our motives and who realizes that there are countless similar but false choices. Yes, both involve rejection, but not rejection of the same object. Are the two treated identically? Should they be?
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Now thats the kind of Hell that I find absolutely reasonable!
Plain isolation. No physical torture.
C
cpayne
Guest
Well, as a single, once-for-all choice, no, most people wouldn’t. But as a continual series of choices: “I will be my own lord.” “I will be my own lord.” “I will be my own lord.” Eventually wouldn’t this become the choice to be cut off from the true Lord?
- Status