Philosophical opinions on Hell

[ERose]

I get that from Muslims too, among others. The issue is that we are stuck taking the word of fallible humans for it, and they give us conflicting information. Uncertainty is not a bad thing if burning forever isn’t on the line. In fact, I think uncertainty is what pushes us toward God and all other knowledge, so I’m not saying uncertainty is always bad. It IS bad, however, when the most drastic consequences EVER are obscured by it.

Hell and the suffering that one receives there are due to his/her works her on earth not necessarily what one believes. A muslim can make it to heaven if his works merit that. It is just harder for him/her than for a Christian because he/she does not have as much of the truth as we do.

The question is what is a better world or existence in your opinion?
A) Life as an automaton with no ability to make decisions for you life?
B) Never existing at all?
C) A life of free will where you can make decisions for yourself but must be willing to accept the consequences for your actions?
D) A life of free will where you can make decisions for yourself without worrying about accepting the consequences for your actions?

I would take (C) every time. It would be interesting on which one you think is better.

Kind of close… If there is to be such a drastic decision as Heaven or Hell that is irrevocable and eternal, then respect for free will demands unequivocal, certain information to allow us a legitimate choice.

My personal view is that God didn’t set up an eternal torturous Hell that we could accidentally “choose”, and that doesn’t fit in the either/or you gave.

There is no accidental choice. You know what is right and wrong. Ethics is not completely tied to religon and can be separated from it. The Greeks philosophers understood ethics without much impact from their religions. We all know that killing someone in cold blood is wrong and if someone makes a conscious decision to do so he/she warrants punishment.

Concerning knowing the existence of God I probably don’t need to answer that one for you since you are a deist, you at least accept that.

 

[cynic]

What kind of God creates people for the sole purpose of loving him, serving him, glorifying him? What kind of monstrous narcissist is that? What if we could do the same - create sentient beings - but did so so that we would be worshipped and loved by them (we might love them back but that’s beside the point), and built into them some self destruct mechanism so that if they chose to not to love us they would be eternally unhappy.

Bah, don’t like that God.

 

[ERose]

What kind of God creates people for the sole purpose of loving him, serving him, glorifying him? What kind of monstrous narcissist is that? What if we could do the same - create sentient beings - but did so so that we would be worshipped and loved by them (we might love them back but that’s beside the point), and built into them some self destruct mechanism so that if they chose to not to love us they would be eternally unhappy.

Bah, don’t like that God.

So I take it you would accept the (D) existence from post 121. If that is the case then welcome to anarchy.

 

[cynic]

Those ‘options’ are an attempt to define the boundaries of the argument. Thus if we do not like the idea of a self-glorifying God we must believe in anarchy. If it were simply about justice then what about those who ask for ‘forgiveness’ and don’t get punished for their sins, because it’s Jesus who takes their punishment for them? (according to christians)

 

[Al_Masetti]

What if Hell is a permanent separation from God … but especially painful because we can actually realize what we are missing … and it is all our own fault … we had choices and we chose poorly … and so … it burns. Terribly.

And we brought it on to ourselves by ourselves. Each of us. Individually.

Something to meditate about.

 

[Al_Masetti]

What kind of God creates people for the sole purpose of loving him, serving him, glorifying him? What kind of monstrous narcissist is that? What if we could do the same - create sentient beings - but did so so that we would be worshipped and loved by them (we might love them back but that’s beside the point), and built into them some self destruct mechanism so that if they chose to not to love us they would be eternally unhappy.

Bah, don’t like that God.

Think of the concept of “Infinity”.

Just let your mind wander a bit.

What is infinity?

Are there different kinds of infinity?

What might they be?

Mathematical?

Time and space?

Creativity?

We are in three (or four) dimensions; how would we of three or four dimensions verbalize someone who operates in an infinite number of dimensions?

Is it possible for something to be SO GOOD that some sacrifices are easily worth making to achieve that super good thing?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What if Hell is a permanent separation from God … but especially painful because we can actually realize what we are missing … and it is all our own fault … we had choices and we chose poorly … and so … it burns. Terribly.

And we brought it on to ourselves by ourselves. Each of us. Individually.

Something to meditate about.

I have decided that forgiveness is about learning. For me anyway. Without forgiving, we can’t learn. So I would imagine Hell is about realizing something but not understanding it because of unforgiveness. A kind of insanity, if you will.

btw folks I am really over the moon about this new forum. I can’t dedicate time to it right now, though, because (a) I am still very fatigued and (b) I have things to do outside of CAF. Does this mean I am getting a life?

(I don’t remember that ROFL smiley being pink; it looks naked.)

 

[Al_Masetti]

I have decided that forgiveness is about learning. For me anyway. Without forgiving, we can’t learn. So I would imagine Hell is about realizing something but not understanding it because of unforgiveness. A kind of insanity, if you will.

btw folks I am really over the moon about this new forum. I can’t dedicate time to it right now, though, because (a) I am still very fatigued and (b) I have things to do outside of CAF. Does this mean I am getting a life?

(I don’t remember that ROFL smiley being pink; it looks naked.)

Glad you’re back!

 

[cpayne]

(I don’t remember that ROFL smiley being pink; it looks naked.)

Hi again, Ani. Keep it clean. No one around here is going to ROFLN. (Okay, maybe once in a while.)

 

[ERose]

Those ‘options’ are an attempt to define the boundaries of the argument. Thus if we do not like the idea of a self-glorifying God we must believe in anarchy. If it were simply about justice then what about those who ask for ‘forgiveness’ and don’t get punished for their sins, because it’s Jesus who takes their punishment for them? (according to christians)

That is where the Loving God comes in. We worship a God that even though we deserve to go to hell due to our works, He will still forgo that for us if we repent.

 

[AndyF]

Philosophical opinions on Hell:

Let us begin by defining and describing Hell. What is it?

Good question.

I like to view hell objectively.

If hell were an institution, it is badly managed. You have some prisoners who are not really prisoners, punishments that are not real punishments but pleasures to some, and beings who are favored over others because of their nature. For some strange unknown reason, nature, a good, is not seen has an item that could be used has a punitive device, leaving at least this pardoxical good residing in hell.

Hell has an open door to the cosmos, but the favored being shown so by allowing him to retain this instrument called nature allows him to use it to escape hell’s physical confines. By another standard, man on the other hand is restricted from using that part of his nature, spirit, from escaping the same confines. We know this is evidenciary possible has man is allowed on occasion to seperate from his body has a spirit in the form of a ghost.

Demons are more favored than man in hell. They are for all intents and purposes allowed to exercise their exclusive privledge and sniff daisies in far off Alpha Centori if they get bored with torturing man. This grace ensures they are not too persecuted. If this liberty were allowed by imprisoned men on earth, they would be exercising what is called privledge, and have their own inner cells where they can while away the hours to their pleasure Capone fashion, with visitor rights and unconditional parol at will. They even get audience with God when they report the nasty things that we do.

As far as the moral nature of hell, it breaches the covenant of the Holy Spirit, in that what the Church* binds on earth is bound in heaven.*This means heaven concurs with the inspired decisions of the Church. It so happens the Church sanctions and finds worth with democratic correctional institutions, heaven doesn’t fall suit as this goes as it promised. It makes this the exception, one of many I’m sorry to say.

AndyF

 

[cpayne]

Huh?

 

[cpayne]

Oh yeah, this reminds me of a related question: Demons don’t exist in hell, do they?

 

[ERose]

Good question.

I like to view hell objectively.

If hell were an institution, it is badly managed. You have some prisoners who are not really prisoners, punishments that are not real punishments but pleasures to some, and beings who are favored over others because of their nature. For some strange unknown reason, nature, a good, is not seen has an item that could be used has a punitive device, leaving at least this pardoxical good residing in hell.

Hell has an open door to the cosmos, but the favored being shown so by allowing him to retain this instrument called nature allows him to use it to escape hell’s physical confines. By another standard, man on the other hand is restricted from using that part of his nature, spirit, from escaping the same confines. We know this is evidenciary possible has man is allowed on occasion to seperate from his body has a spirit in the form of a ghost.

Demons are more favored than man in hell. They are for all intents and purposes allowed to exercise their exclusive privledge and sniff daisies in far off Alpha Centori if they get bored with torturing man. This grace ensures they are not too persecuted. If this liberty were allowed by imprisoned men on earth, they would be exercising what is called privledge, and have their own inner cells where they can while away the hours to their pleasure Capone fashion, with visitor rights and unconditional parol at will. They even get audience with God when they report the nasty things that we do.

As far as the moral nature of hell, it breaches the covenant of the Holy Spirit, in that what the Church* binds on earth is bound in heaven.*This means heaven concurs with the inspired decisions of the Church. It so happens the Church sanctions and finds worth with democratic correctional institutions, heaven doesn’t fall suit as this goes as it promised. It makes this the exception, one of many I’m sorry to say.

AndyF

What? It looks like you spend way too much time watching television’s view on hell than the churches.

 

[ERose]

Those ‘options’ are an attempt to define the boundaries of the argument. Thus if we do not like the idea of a self-glorifying God we must believe in anarchy. If it were simply about justice then what about those who ask for ‘forgiveness’ and don’t get punished for their sins, because it’s Jesus who takes their punishment for them? (according to christians)

Do you have any other options to add? We are talking about the Judeo-Christian belief in hell so there are boundaries already in place.

A-D are the only options that I see that you can have. You have to pick one or add an additional option.

 

[AndyF]

What? It looks like you spend way too much time watching television’s view on hell than the churches.

MMMmmmm. Ad Hominem with presumption, and a prophesed teacher at that. Interesting. It would appear seniority has nothing to do with how one has proven respect or christian charity, something very basic the Church teaches the very young to practice, and you apparently missed.

But no.

All my inferances have doctrine and summa as their source but I do admit only those with knowledge in these areas would understand the implication,metaphores and anologies I present.

I am still willing to clarify any point if the personal jabs are set aside.

AndyF

 

[cpayne]

:
All my inferances have doctrine and summa as their source and the material would be immediately apparent to knowledgable people.

I think I’ll save this reply to my computer and use it from now on in all conversations. So anyone out there who disagrees with me on anything—be prepared. (You know who you are.)

 

[john_doran]

I am still willing to clarify any point if the personal jabs are set aside.

please, clarify - it’s difficult to distill the analytic core of your argument from your original post.

the few points i suspect you to be making, though, seem to be badly off the mark:

1. damned angels are not more “privileged” than the human residents of hell - if the fallen sons of morning can do more than hellbound humans, it’s because they’re angels, and are no less angelic (i.e. beings of pure incorporeal intellect) for all that they’ve been cast out of heaven;
2. there is no “leaving” hell: if hell is eternal separation from god, then everywhere the damned may go, there they are. in hell.

christopher marlowe says it best in dr. faustus:

Faustus
Was not that Lucifer an Angel once?
Mephistophilis
Yes, Faustus, and most dearly lov’d of God.
Faustus
How comes it then that he is Prince of devils?
Mephistophilis
O, by aspiring pride and insolence,
For which God threw him from the face of heaven.
Faustus
And what are you that live with Lucifer?
Mephistophilis
Unhappy spirits that fell with Lucifer,
Conspired against our God with Lucifer,
And are for ever damned with Lucifer.
Faustus
Where are you damned?
Mephistophilis
In hell.
Faustus
How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephistophilis
Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Thinkst thou that I who saw the face of God,
And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,
Am not tormented with ten thousand hells,
In being deprived of everlasting bliss?
O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands,
Which strike a terror to my fainting soul.

1. hell is democratic: everyone there wants to be there. because “there” is just “away from god”.

 

[AndyF]

please, clarify

• it’s difficult to distill the analytic core of your argument from your original post.

Certainly. and thanks for responding.

, and are no less angelic (i.e. beings of pure incorporeal intellect) for all that they’ve been cast out of heaven;

If liberties are curtailed for those accused then I think in fairness to all entities to be judged, we could expect
something, a* good* they possessed be removed. Remember these creatures did not require Faith, and they were allowed some proximity to God that would be the envy of man, and not burdened with the process of discursive thought. They are able to foresee the results of their actions in any endeavor. These are definitely of a higher status than man and dogma states so.

So, we can see these are “top level executives” on the heirarchy, and ones that should know better than man, and be more accountable. But what we do see has all the earmarks of executive privledge even when they are in disfavor. Everything presupposes due to their status that an equal punishment proportional to their status be applied. What we do see is only a restriction from the beatific vision and admittance to heaven. The equivalent on earth would be for a governor to lock out is fraudulent accountants out of his social sphere as a punishment allowing them to do harm to everyone else they meet. Demons receive a token punishment in comparison to the immensity of the offense.

What is true is they can still influence man, as they did as angels. They still have access to earth as they did has angels. They suffer no physical torment as you say correctly that they are pure spirit(unless another form is allowed.). So the brimestone and sulpher would have no affect as it does on man. In fact nothing of a physical nature in hell affects them, so what’s the point in their respect.

it’s because they’re angels

, and are no less angelic

…then a punishment appropriate to their nature would the logical course to take. And an ideal punishment for an angelic being would be to curtail his angelic movement. Remember, as angels their movement is used in service to God, a* good*. Where they are sent a good will never be forthcoming. So we have 2 valid reasons for having restrictions: 1/a good will never be forthcoming in their domain 2/ it would curtail their liberty which is a primary general punishment in any justice system.

1. there is no “leaving” hell: if hell is eternal separation from god, then everywhere the damned may go, there they are. in hell.

Your saying the torture of the loss of the beatific vision surpasses any torment that anyone could receive.
So equally then man conceivably could be given the same sentence as Mephistophilis since he suffers the same hell everywhere he goes.?

1. hell is

democratic: everyone there wants to be there. because “there” is just “away from god”.

Ah! here we enter into a judicial issue of another sort. I would correct you in one small way. If someone chose to exist and knew the potential consequences of existing,THEN if he had chosen hell he deserved it. Hell’s existance is justified only in context of an environment where beings have chosen to reside in it, just as a man pressed into the gladiator life may not be appreciative of that life if he knew that if he didn’t abide by rules he would be destined for the lions. Some would want it all the same, and some wouldn’t.

Democratically, the primary choice is made knowing the risk, the destiny is chosen by adherence to the precepts.

Thanks.

AndyF

[/QUOTE]

 

[john_doran]

If liberties are curtailed for those accused then I think in fairness to all entities to be judged, we could expect
something, a* good* they possessed be removed.

they did lose a good, the good: the beatific vision.

but if you mean that they should suffer the loss or restriction in the use of an ability, then why should we “expect” this? what is it about the concept of “punishment” that entails such a loss?

AndyF:

So, we can see these are “top level executives” on the heirarchy, and ones that should know better than man, and be more accountable. But what we do see has all the earmarks of executive privledge even when they are in disfavor. Everything presupposes due to their status that an equal punishment proportional to their status be applied. What we do see is only a restriction from the beatific vision and admittance to heaven. The equivalent on earth would be for a governor to lock out is fraudulent accountants out of his social sphere as a punishment allowing them to do harm to everyone else they meet. Demons receive a token punishment in comparison to the immensity of the offense.

“only” an restriction from the beatific vision? there’s nothing worse that could be suffered by an angel, i would think - as far above man as angels are in their ability to think and to perceive and to feel the joy associated with those thoughts and perceptions, so is the torment suffered by the loss of their greatest joy so much worse for an angel than any torment we could suffer.

which makes your analogy limp too much; i would suggest that hell for the reprobate angels is more like a human being blinded, or perhaps having the ability to feel physically altogether removed. it’s difficult for me even to think of an appropriate analog for what i imagine they must suffer.

i mean, i’ve led a pretty ordinary life, but even i have experienced emotional pain that was so bad i would gladly have traded it for any physical pain; when i try to imagine that kind of interior suffering, but only a million orders of magnitude worse, i cannot. and that’s probably not even a fraction of the pain of the shadow that has fallen over the hearts of the damned angels.

which means that i believe that the angels do suffer an equal punishment, proportional to their status as angelic beings.

AndyF:

What is true is they can still influence man, as they did as angels. They still have access to earth as they did has angels. They suffer no physical torment as you say correctly that they are pure spirit(unless another form is allowed.). So the brimestone and sulpher would have no affect as it does on man. In fact nothing of a physical nature in hell affects them, so what’s the point in their respect.

as above, i would say that the pain endured by the fallen angels is worse than any of the physical torments visited on the humans in hell (it’s not like there is any physical suffering in hell right now, anyway, since there are only souls in hell until the general resurrection).

and what difference does it make if the angels can travel from place to place if they are wracked by excruciating agony everywhere they go, and whatever they do? if what you’re understanding as the exercise of a “freedom” or “privilege” in no way lessens the suffering of the angels (and, in fact, perhaps even makes it worse), then how does the logic of punishment entail the constraint of those freedoms?

and the “point” of the fire and brimstone is for the embodied residents of hell, not the angels.