Philosophical opinions on Hell

[ERose]

In its purist form Hell is the eternal separation from God.

The people that end up in hell will find punishment or suffering that is warranted by their works here on earth. In other words, a habitual child molester will suffer more in hell than lets say an atheist who refuses the love that God has offered him.

Sin in its purist definition is conscious rejection or turning from God.

So those that go to hell are those who do not want a relationship with God and since He gave us free will it shows that He does not want to impose His Love on us. We must willing to accept it.

So the people that go to heaven are those that consciously (if they are at the age where they can make an informed decision on their on) or by proxy (for those who cannot make an informed decision on their own, such as young children, mentally handicapped, etc.) accepted the Love of God that he offers. Those that are going to go to hell are those that consciously refused the Love of God.

That is the reason why we say that someone freely decides to go to hell. It is ultimately their decision not God’s.

 

[john_doran]

Now thats the kind of Hell that I find absolutely reasonable!

Plain isolation. No physical torture.

well, it is traditionally thought that the real torture of hell is not the burning or the disembowling or whatever, but the separation from god.

the damned would rather see god and feel the physical sufferings of hell, than not see god, but suffer no physical pain.

 

[ERose]

perhaps she was hoping that God would forgive her for that sin. i dont think she was really seeking hell there.

Repentence for the sin is required for its obsolution. If someone commits a sin with the intention that they will latter confess that sin to be obsolved will not find obsolution until they are truly sorry for it.

Murder is a mortal sin and is a conscious decision to turn away from God. For one to find heaven he or she must look toward God for He is light that guides us there.

 

[Wandered_Off]

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?

Certainly, it could. The question remains whether the person making these changes actually believes there is a legitimate alternative. Many alternatives are presented, and if there’s only One True Path™, then most are bogus.

Let’s say Joe Schmoe decided to become Catholic. Does that mean that he looked at what he believed to be a legitimate offer from Allah to avoid the Muslim Hell (where your skin is burnt off only to be replaced by a fresh skin to burn off over and over)? Not likely. He is most likely an atheist with respect to Allah.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

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.

I do not like to speculate on the fate of “non-Christians”.

I am refering to those individuals, of any walk of life, who do not order their lives in terms of a relationship with God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Those that are going to go to hell are those that consciously refused the Love of God.

and what is this so called ‘love of god’?

 

[ERose]

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.

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?

The problem with your argument is that the vast majority of unbelivers have the same opportunities to accept God as believers do. But they choose not to accept the hand offered out to them.

I was at one time an unbeliever. I was not raised Christian nor did I ever have anything perceptively in my life that would have classified me as a Theist. Yet somewhere along the line I was given the opportunity to accept God and I did. But I could have very easily rejected God as well.

Somewhere in all of our lives, especially here in the Western Civilization, you will be given opportunities to reasonably accept the Hand of God. I pray that you don’t pass it up.

 

[Wandered_Off]

The problem with your argument is that the vast majority of unbelivers have the same opportunities to accept God as believers do. But they choose not to accept the hand offered out to them.

Of course. The thrust of my argument was not that they never had as many opportunities but that they had no way to know which offer of eternal bliss/avoiding eternal punishment is the right one or whether such a choice even exists outside human minds.

It’s like saying you had more opportunities to believe in Santa than, say, someone in China. So? You still don’t. It’s not because you think you got a legitimate offer from Santa and turned it down, but because you believe Santa doesn’t exist or at least isn’t handing out presents based on your belief.

 

[ERose]

and what is this so called ‘love of god’?

The great revelation of the Christian God is “God is Love”. Christian love is not what is believed today which basically surrounds the act of sex. Christian love is an unconditional giving of one’s self. It is gift without expecting something in return. Jesus said that “There is no greater Love than one willing to lay down is life for a friend.”

So in the spiritual world Love is the unifying force. It draws creatures to each other and it ultimately draws creatures to God.

But Love must be freely given and freely received. God offers his Love to you freely and you must receive it freely. He will not force it on you. He will not make you a slave to His Love for then it is no longer true Love.

So to summarize the Love of God is God’s free gift of Himself to You.

 

[ricmat]

Of course. The thrust of my argument was not that they never had as many opportunities but that they had no way to know which offer of eternal bliss/avoiding eternal punishment is the right one or whether such a choice even exists outside human minds.

Perhaps the only way to know if the road is the right road is to take it for a while. And I don’t mean get out the binoculars and look down all the way down all the roads prior to taking one. I mean to REALLY pick out a road and take it - beyond the range of the binoculars. Travel it for a while. It may lead no where, or it may lead somewhere.

A lot of people have recommended a road for you to travel on, based on their own positive experiences. It would seem to me that if I had to choose a road on faith instead of limited range binoculars, that I’d follow those recommendations.

 

[ERose]

Of course. The thrust of my argument was not that they never had as many opportunities but that they had no way to know which offer of eternal bliss/avoiding eternal punishment is the right one or whether such a choice even exists outside human minds.

It’s like saying you had more opportunities to believe in Santa than, say, someone in China. So? You still don’t. It’s not because you think you got a legitimate offer from Santa and turned it down, but because you believe Santa doesn’t exist or at least isn’t handing out presents based on your belief.

From my personal experience I had a hole or emptiness in myself that ate at me as a teenager. I tried to fill it with all kind of things ultimately nothing worked. So I asked for whatever was out there to show me the way and He did. After about five years of searching I found what I was looking for the permenantly fill that emptiness. That was the Love of God and the Catholic church.

I guess what I am saying is that obviously you are also asking the same questions and trying to fill the same emptiness or you would not be particapating in these forums. I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[inthecloud]

I remind you that:
One: FOr Purists Hell is the enternal separation form GOD. The dark, eternal and loveless life. The so called tortures of hell are mostly parables of that suffering.
Two: Even if todays Chuch teaches about a eternal hell, during history mystics have the same problem of sceptics of believing in a loving GOD that at the same time sends people to hell. People like Origen and Sadhu Singh for example.
Three. The Catholic teaching of purgatory is a example of trying to concile the idea of a all loving God with hell. Many people not saintly enough to get to heaven will end in Purgatory and eventualy will get to Heaven. And since Catholics believe only Jesus will choose who get to heaven, purgatory or hell, they do not keep sending people to hell like fundies. I guess that if there is a heaven and we get to him, we will be surprised to see who got to heaven and who do not.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The great revelation of the Christian God is “God is Love”. Christian love is not what is believed today which basically surrounds the act of sex. Christian love is an unconditional giving of one’s self. It is gift without expecting something in return. Jesus said that “There is no greater Love than one willing to lay down is life for a friend.”

So in the spiritual world Love is the unifying force. It draws creatures to each other and it ultimately draws creatures to God.

But Love must be freely given and freely received. God offers his Love to you freely and you must receive it freely. He will not force it on you. He will not make you a slave to His Love for then it is no longer true Love.

ACCEPT MY LOVE OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES! Is that it?

So to summarize the Love of God is God’s free gift of Himself to You.

I’d really love to recieve this alleged gift. Problem is, its not really a gift. And its not really from God. Instead, what we get are promises written on some obscure manuscripts whose origins & consistency are the subject of intense debate.

So should people like me go to hell for sincerely rejecting some baseless promises, instead of rejecting god himself?

 

[Wandered_Off]

After about five years of searching I found what I was looking for the permenantly fill that emptiness. That was the Love of God and the Catholic church.

That’s really great you found something that works for you.

I guess what I am saying is that obviously you are also asking the same questions and trying to fill the same emptiness or you would not be particapating in these forums. I hope you find what you are looking for.

I really appreciate your sincere sentiments. I am here because I enjoy discussing these issues. I found an answer that works for me too, although you would say it’s the wrong one. .

 

[AgnosTheist]

IOne: FOr Purists Hell is the enternal separation form GOD.

my objection is only for those who believe that hell includes hellfire (or eternal torture)

WHO AMONG YOU HERE, believes so?

 

[Wandered_Off]

Perhaps the only way to know if the road is the right road is to take it for a while.

I can’t disagree on this, ricmat. I wish there were time enough to try them all for a while.

 

[john_doran]

my objection is only for those who believe that hell includes hellfire (or eternal torture)

WHO AMONG YOU HERE, believes so?

what if that’s what eternal separation from god actually feels like?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Agreed. Its not about the duration, its about the severity.

And the severity is described not only by intent, but also by means, and end. Sin, as habit, has as its end continued sinning.

now its saying that one must be punished according to duration…

Actually, it’s not. Rather, eternity is as a state, not as a measure of time. Furthermore, as the sin is toward eternity as an end, even though itself is not of infinite duration, it warrents infinite punishment, and destruction of the soul would be finite punishment, so torment of the soul by physical and mental pains is fitting for one who has, in his eternity (that is on purpose, in the deepest sense), sinned. So he must be punished eternally. This is the state we call hell.

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.

But the sin themselves were of potentially infinite duration, such that if God gave the person infinite time to live, that person would commit infinite sins and the sins would get progressively worse. This state, toward this end, warrents eternal punishment.

1. its also suggesting punishment for what a person is capable of doing, not for what the person actually did

Rather, what a person would have done, given an unbound time, and what a person would have become, which is progressively more evil. But the punishment is for the sins themselves, for they are those sins which have at their end, unequivocally, that which would be, given time, progressively more evil. They are sins, in other words, that bring eternal blemish upon the soul.

besides, the only reason we sin is because of the limitations of mortality

If this is the only reason, if our freedom of the will has nothing to do with our sin, either because it is ineffective, and so not free, or because it does not exist at all, then you are correct, God would be unjust. But we know that God is just, and so the will is free.

therefore human sin is as much the responsibility of the creator as that of the created.

And this is patently untrue. It is untrue from the perspective of the Christian, for as a Christian one accepts responsibility for one’s own acts, and God’s just punishment, though Christ substituted Himself for us so we need not be punished.

It is untrue from the perspective of the atheist and agnostic, because for the atheist and agnostic, there may be no god, and nothing can be the fault of a being that doesn’t exist. The universe would be unjust by its nature.

 

[ERose]

Three. The Catholic teaching of purgatory is a example of trying to concile the idea of a all loving God with hell. Many people not saintly enough to get to heaven will end in Purgatory and eventualy will get to Heaven. And since Catholics believe only Jesus will choose who get to heaven, purgatory or hell, they do not keep sending people to hell like fundies. I guess that if there is a heaven and we get to him, we will be surprised to see who got to heaven and who do not.

No this part you are wrong. The belief in purgatory comes from:

1. Historical Belief (The early Christians believed in it)
2. The difference between mortal sin (which leads to death) and venial sin (which does not lead to death)
3. Temporal punishment due to sin.
4. Nothing impure can enter into the presense of God.

It has nothing to do with you perceived conflicts between the Love of God and the concept of hell.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

WHO AMONG YOU HERE, believes so?

I believe that hell will involve, ultimately, physical and spiritual torment.