Philosophical opinions on Hell

[ERose]

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

No it is accept my Love or don’t it is up to you.

 

[AgnosTheist]

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

it would classify as torture.

 

[ERose]

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?

Then receive it! If you don’t want it then don’t take it. But someone who doesn’t believe in God you are trying very hard to make yourself believe that you don’t believe.

If you were a true atheist you wouldn’t care what I or anyone else here on this forum believes but that isn’t the truth is it. You really are not an atheist. Deep down inside you know what is true and you are trying as hard as you can to make yourself believe that it isn’t.

I would wish you luck with that but I wouldn’t have a problem being able to call you a brother in Christ one day.

 

[ERose]

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

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. .

Then what is it that works for you so that we can discuss these issues on the same level?

 

[john_doran]

it would classify as torture.

how so? i mean, if i cheat on my wife, and she walks out on me for my infidelity, how would the resulting emotional agony of the separation be “torture”?

unless, of course, you mean either that i’m torturing myself, or, more generally, that it’s “torture” in the colloquial sense of “hurts real bad”.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Actually, it’s not. Rather, eternity is as a state, not as a measure of time.

eternity is both a state and 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.

this is the bone of contention here. why in heavens name should a finite sin warrant an infinite punishment?

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.

“Potentially”. You would punish a person for what he could potentially do, not for what he actually did. Thats grossly immoral.

The ideal hell would not be dissimilar to earthly life. Imagine your life extended to infinity. An Infinite number of Finite actions, with each mistake warranting a finite punishment. Finity within Infinity. That would be fair and just.

Rather, what a person would have done, given an unbound time, and what a person would have become, which is progressively more evil.

People dont generally become progressively more evil.

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.

We have a certain degree of Free will. One that is confined within the limitations & demands of the flesh. Your lust, your greed, your aggression, they are not entirely your fault.

 

[Wandered_Off]

Then what is it that works for you so that we can discuss these issues on the same level?

With respect to the thread topic, I reject the threat of an eternal torture hell as an immoral, evil, man-made device to secure subjugation to religious authorities. If you’re asking a broader question, without getting into detail to derail AgnosTheists’ thread, I take a Deistic approach to God.

The idea of Hell exists for amoral theists. In other words, people who behave a certain way to avoid punishment are amoral, IMO. I see morality as looking beyond your own self-interests in your decisions, so people who alter their behavior because of Hell are amoral in those decisions. They care not one bit for what is moral, right, or wrong, but only what benefits them. If the only reason you don’t rob a bank is that you don’t wish to serve prison time, then you are amoral, because you don’t care whether stealing is right or wrong. The same can be said for those who alter their behavior on the basis of trying to get to Heaven, IMO.

Please don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying that all believers in Heaven or Hell are amoral, just those for whom they are primary motivators.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Please don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying that all believers in Heaven or Hell are amoral, just those for whom they are primary motivators.

I agree with you, and very-much like what you have said. The writings of the anonymous pilgrim, a staple in Orthodox writing, said almost the same exact thing. We should not act well primarily because of fear of hell, or because of desire for heaven, but first out of love for God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

how so? i mean, if i cheat on my wife, and she walks out on me for my infidelity, how would the resulting emotional agony of the separation be “torture”?

OH! the emotional agony, alright. i thought you were saying that being separated from god would be like somebody chopping off (being separated from) your legs…aaaargh!

emotional agony, i dont see any problems with it.

 

[john_doran]

OH! the emotional agony, alright. i thought you were saying that being separated from god would be like somebody chopping off (being separated from) your legs…aaaargh!

emotional agony, i dont see any problems with it.

right. but what i’m saying is that the agony of separation from god is SO bad that it’s the emotional analog of getting your legs hacked off and your intestines pulled out through your nose…

look, hell is not like jail, and the devils and demons that are there are not like god’s jailers: there is no one in hell who does not choose to be there, as difficult as that may be for you to imagine. it just so happens that the occupants of hell hate god more than they do the pain of separation from god, as well as the pain inflicted on them by the demons and devils with whom they share the abyss, and who hate everything so profoundly, they take it out on everything else by causing as much pain as possible.

in that sense it’s like a jail: if there were no warden, no guards, and no cells in, say, san quentin or folsom, many of the strong inmates would hurt the weak at will. because that’s the kind of individuals they are. i mean, there are guards and cells and wardens in human jails, and the weak are still terrorized by the vicious among the inmate hierarchy, so imagine how much worse it would be to be locked up with devils…

you imagine a hell where people are begging to be released, and a grim, sadistic god refuses, all the while enjoying the suffering of the damned. but that’s wrong: every single resident of hell hates god, and hates him so much that he’d rather curse god and suffer, than ask for mercy.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

… every single resident of hell hates god, and hates him so much that he’d rather curse god and suffer, than ask for mercy.

This brings up an interesting question, which certainly Agnostheist can tell me to redirect to another thread…

Could someone ask for mercy in hell? If so, how is hell permenant? If not, why not, and what difference then is hell from a prison, if no one can leave?

 

[Wandered_Off]

every single resident of hell hates god, and hates him so much that he’d rather curse god and suffer, than ask for mercy.

It just seems far-fetched that people who allegedly merited Hell in the first place would put principle above their own suffering in the way you suggest.

 

[repo_man]

this is the bone of contention here. why in heavens name should a finite sin warrant an infinite punishment?

to understand it, you have to understand what [mortal] sin is. i know what you’re getting at, but when you commit a mortal sin and are not sorry enough to receive penance, you destroy the bond of grace between you and god. if the bond is broken when you die, it will stay broken. you’re downplaying sin. mortal sin is direct violation of everything that god is. abortion, murder, greed, hate … it separates us from god. and when you die separated, you continue to be separated.

 

[ERose]

With respect to the thread topic, I reject the threat of an eternal torture hell as an immoral, evil, man-made device to secure subjugation to religious authorities. If you’re asking a broader question, without getting into detail to derail AgnosTheists’ thread, I take a Deistic approach to God.

The idea of Hell exists for amoral theists. In other words, people who behave a certain way to avoid punishment are amoral, IMO. I see morality as looking beyond your own self-interests in your decisions, so people who alter their behavior because of Hell are amoral in those decisions. They care not one bit for what is moral, right, or wrong, but only what benefits them. If the only reason you don’t rob a bank is that you don’t wish to serve prison time, then you are amoral, because you don’t care whether stealing is right or wrong. The same can be said for those who alter their behavior on the basis of trying to get to Heaven, IMO.

Please don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying that all believers in Heaven or Hell are amoral, just those for whom they are primary motivators.

So you are saying that all people go to heaven whether they like it or not or merit it or not? Or do you not believe in heaven as well?

 

[ERose]

This brings up an interesting question, which certainly Agnostheist can tell me to redirect to another thread…

Could someone ask for mercy in hell? If so, how is hell permenant? If not, why not, and what difference then is hell from a prison, if no one can leave?

To be honest the answer to your question is no they cannot receive mercy in hell or salvation. You got about 80 years if you are lucky to make the decision whether or not you want to spend eternity in the Love of God. How much more time do you need?

 

[AgnosTheist]

to understand it, you have to understand what [mortal] sin is. i know what you’re getting at, but when you commit a mortal sin and are not sorry enough to receive penance, you destroy the bond of grace between you and god. if the bond is broken when you die, it will stay broken. you’re downplaying sin. mortal sin is direct violation of everything that god is. abortion, murder, greed, hate … it separates us from god. and when you die separated, you continue to be separated.

yeah we all know that. so what if theres a broken bond, where is the sense in a supposedly loving god not to let an insignificant offense slide? just give the soul a mercy killing by ending its existence. is that impossible? is that unethical? to the contrary!

 

[AgnosTheist]

How much more time do you need?

Its not time I need, but proof. Even those catholics who knowingly commit mortal sins, they do so because they are not entirely convinced of catholic teachings.

 

[Wandered_Off]

So you are saying that all people go to heaven whether they like it or not or merit it or not? Or do you not believe in heaven as wll?

I personally lean away from belief in an afterlife, but if there were one, what we “merit” is not applicable. Applying temporal concepts like justice or merit to eternity is like dividing by zero: It just doesn’t work.

If there is a benevolent, personal God, then I would expect everyone to be with God who wanted to, and those who didn’t would either be allowed to cease or in a place of non-torment.

Suppose you offered a priceless gift but then added the caveat that you’d beat the **** out of anybody who doesn’t take it…

Adding ‘eternal punishment’ taints the decision process, and it is quite the condition. It’s like saying, “Here, take this delicious cookie. Oh, and if you don’t, I’m going to stick your face in the fan.” This is as much a threat as an offer.

Wouldn’t one’s decision to follow God have that much more meaning if the alternative weren’t eternal torment? Then we would be more confident of peoples’ motives.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Adding ‘eternal punishment’ taints the decision process, and it is quite the condition. It’s like saying, “Here, take this delicious cookie. Oh, and if you don’t, I’m going to stick your face in the fan.” This is as much a threat as an offer.

LOL!

so true! so true!

 

[iamrefreshed]

yeah we all know that. so what if theres a broken bond, where is the sense in a supposedly loving god not to let an insignificant offense slide? just give the soul a mercy killing by ending its existence. is that impossible? is that unethical? to the contrary!

You begin to slide down the slippery slope once you assume you can speak for God.

Have you ever taken the time to study any church fathers writings or do you just apply your logic of the moment to all situations?

I mean no offense but your opinions change rather frequently.