The Fear of Hell

[Charlemagne_III]

As far as, “To be closed to believing means we will never know”, I disagree since God can and does do what God chooses to do, not always what we think God should do.

Seems to me that Saul was “closed” to believing that Jesus was Who He Is and yet Jesus had “ideas” of His Own, so to speak, didn’t He?

As to that, it seems Saul was not entirely closed to believing, since he did come to believe.

Had he been entirely closed to believing, he might have thought he was hallucinating when he heard Jesus speak to him.

This is how an atheist might explain a miracle performed in front of his eyes.

Saul was certainly not an atheist, and he had many occasions of Old Testament miracles that he already believed in.

So yes, he believed he had experienced a miracle, and from that came knowledge of Jesus Christ.

 

[Tom_Baum]

As to that, it seems Saul was not entirely closed to believing, since he did come to believe.

Had he been entirely closed to believing, he might have thought he was hallucinating when he heard Jesus speak to him.

This is how an atheist might explain a miracle performed in front of his eyes.

Saul was certainly not an atheist, and he had many occasions of Old Testament miracles that he already believed in.

So yes, he believed he had experienced a miracle, and from that came knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Saul very much was a believer, he just didn’t believe that Jesus was Who Jesus Is.

You wrote, “Had he been entirely closed to believing, he might have thought he was hallucinating when he heard Jesus speak to him.” and “This is how an atheist might explain a miracle performed in front of his eyes.”

These are pretty close to what some “believers” here and elsewhere seem to want me to believe has happened to me rather than that God has revealed things to me.

Have you any idea why it is that “believers” sometimes seem to have the hardest time believing in things that are happening in the present as opposed to believing in things that happened in the past?

This is not a modern phenomenon, the same thing was happening in Jesus’s day and the same thing was happening in many stories of the OT.

“Nothing new under the sun”, or something like that, still true.

 

[tonyrey]

What is “unbelief” as used in this context?

Lack of belief.

 

[tonyrey]

You asked, “How many Bryants is Gandhi worth?”

I was taught in second grade that we are all equal in God’s Eyes so maybe God came up with a better “Plan” than some think possible and some, sad to say, think even acceptable.

The question is addressed to a person who doesn’t believe in God and has no rational basis for belief in equality. An accident of birth doesn’t justify a moral principle…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

tonyrey, you also say:

Only God knows how many descendants people would have and how many of them would commit atrocities. It is impossible for us to judge who should be allowed to live or prevented from living.

I agree with you that it is impossible for us to judge who should be “allowed to live” based upon any particular person’s actions. However, if a person ends up in eternal hell, it seems quite clear to me that they would be better off had they never existed in the first place. How can this be disputed? What possible good could outweigh endless torment?

It seems like an ultimate life-outcome of eternal damnation is the demarcation between a life worth living and a life that should never have existed in the first place.

prmerger, you say:

There is no “God knew he was going to do this”. There is only the Eternal Now for God.

So God no more is responsible for Martin Bryant’s choices when He created Bryant, than He is responsible for your choices at this very moment. It’s all happening in the Eternal Now.

I agree with you, and this is precisely the point: God is responsible (to some extent) for our actions right now since he has perfect knowledge and power. Any amount of human suffering and evil could potentially be justified by saying “well, we just don’t know how God is using this evil to bring about a greater good, but there is no reason to suppose he isn’t.” or something to that effect. The problem is that eternal torment is obviously gratuitous and does not bring about any discernible greater good.

Even if the “greater good” of hell is that the blessed saints in heaven will be able to say “glad that didn’t happen to me ,” it still seems like the universe as a whole is quite revolting. This ugliness can’t be the final truth, it just can’t be.

The only reason I can sleep at night while knowing about the horrors so many human beings undergo in this life (war, starvation, loneliness, disease, rape, despair, etc) is because I am a selfish and uncaring person. I care mostly about myself, my family, my friends, and my community, and so I’m happy. Hell though, is so terrible and horrific, even a selfish person like myself can’t stand to think about it being the final reality for anyone.

But, imagine the coldness and callousness of the saints, for them to be happy in heaven with the knowledge of their endlessly suffering brothers and sisters in hell, regardless of how they got there. Do you see a drug addict wasting away on the street and think, “well, he chose to do drugs so I guess he got what he deserved. Glad that isn’t me !”
If you wouldn’t think this way, then how could the saints in heaven feel that way to an infinite degree on a cosmic scale?

 

[tonyrey]

Thereby depriving countless individuals of the opportunity to exist simply because their ancestors would be evil? It would be monstrous injustice to penalise the unborn for events beyond their control. In fact you are advocating the very atrocity of which you accuse God! At least He gives everyone an equal opportunity whereas if you had the power you would implement a moral Holocaust that disregards human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

According to that argument there is no reason to create anyone! It doesn’t make sense to ask why only a certain number of persons and animals have been created. You could always argue it is too many or too few! How do you decide the optimum number?

I’m not advocating an atrocity, since simply not existing in the first place seems to have no moral significance at all. Unicorns don’t exist. Is that an atrocity? Of course not! I’m not saying God should “snuff out” those whom he knows will go to hell, but rather that he shouldn’t have created them in the first place. God would have done no evil by not creating a person, but by creating them in the perfect knowledge that they will spend eternity in hell, he seems to share in the moral responsibility of that horrific fate.

Hell cannot be so horrific if a person chooses to be there rather than heaven. Only a lunatic would opt for a fate without any compensations. Even in this world people make themselves lonely and miserable because of their lust for power and wealth but the pleasure and satisfaction it gives them makes it preferable to having to share with others. In fact they often choose to die rather than sacrifice their ill-gotten gains. Both heaven and hell commence in this world…

Non-existence has a great deal of moral significance for men and women who want children and cannot have one. For them it seems an unjust deprivation if they believe God has the power to give them a son or daughter. (And the whole issue presupposes the existence of God.) One could argue, as Schopenhauer did, that it would be better if no one existed on this planet. Do you agree with him? If no why not? If you disagree with him you must believe life is intrinsically valuable regardless of people’s opinions and not to exist simply because another person is evil is unjust and unreasonable.

Consider, if you knew with absolute certainty that if you were to have a certain child, that child would grow up to be Stalin, would you not choose to forego marriage in order to spare the lives and freedom of hundreds of millions? How much more would you forego marriage if you knew that your child would be tormented for eternity in hell? It would seem to be the right thing to do, in my opinion.

The number of potentially “saved” descendants of a person in hell has no bearing on whether it was morally justifiable for God to have created the doomed person in the first place. It is impossible to harm a specific hypothetical or potential person since existence must be prior for the harm to occur, though I will grant that it is possible to harm “the future of humanity” in general or something like that. But, what could possibly have harmed “the future of humanity” more than eternal hell? Forget “global warming,” the hell seemingly awaiting most of humanity is infinitely more terrifying and evil!

To deny the cogency of belief in hell is to reject the reality of both evil and free will which is presupposed in your question about Stalin. Would you forgo the opportunity to exist in heaven simply because you knew a child of yours would choose to reject you and be totally independent? If hell is evil and terrifying so is free will because it is the reason hell exists. Yet without free will we would be incapable of love and, as Sartre pointed out, we wouldn’t be persons. It is unreasonable to expect to have everything for nothing: there is a price to pay for every gift and talent we possess. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage and to think otherwise is to indulge in fantasy. It is a question of all or nothing: there are no half-measures when it comes to creating a worthwhile world. The future of humanity is not harmed but enhanced by the possibility of hell. It reveals the incredible amount of power we have been given to shape our destiny even on earth and far more so after death. The alternative is to believe we are insignificant worthless specks in the eternal darkness and doomed to disappear without leaving the slightest trace that we ever existed. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love would be no more than futile, meaningless illusions which lead to only one possible conclusion. If only matter exists nothing matters…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

tonyrey,

According to that argument there is no reason to create anyone!

Yes, I agree. I think that we don’t know God’s reasons for creating anything at all. But, if it is “love,” then eternal torment seems to be precluded no?

Hell cannot be so horrific if a person chooses to be there rather than heaven. Only a lunatic would opt for a fate without any compensations.

I have already addressed this euphemistic conception of our soteriological situation. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any “compensations,” just that eternal conscious torment is unjust, unwarranted, ugly, and gratuitous, and thus cannot proceed from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. I have stated my belief in annihilation or some combination of limited torment and annihilation previously. I don’t know how much punishment is enough, but it seems clear that limitless punishment is too much.

Non-existence has a great deal of moral significance for men and women who want children and cannot have one.

My wife and I are some of these such people. I feel ambivalent about our lack of children since 1) we’re not “owed” them in any sense and 2) if eternal hell is real, I am happy that I won’t be responsible for the biological existence of anyone who will end up there. I’m being somewhat facetious with my second point, but also somewhat serious.

One could argue, as Schopenhauer did, that it would be better if no one existed on this planet. Do you agree with him? If no why not?

Given eternal hell, yes I absolutely agree with your interpretation of Schopenhauer. If there is no eternal hell, but limited proportional punishment and/or annihilation, then no, I disagree because it seems like the risk is worth the reward (a good life/heaven/etc).

Would you forgo the opportunity to exist in heaven simply because you knew a child of yours would choose to reject you and be totally independent?

This is impossible, practically speaking. But, theoretically, yes I would gladly sacrifice my existence if I knew that the price was for my child to be tormented in hell forever. I don’t think these euphemisms help us to gain clarity on this subject. “Total independence” sounds quite nice doesn’t it? We’re talking about eternal torment here though.

If hell is evil and terrifying so is free will because it is the reason hell exists. Yet without free will we would be incapable of love and, as Sartre pointed out, we wouldn’t be persons. It is unreasonable to expect to have everything for nothing: there is a price to pay for every gift and talent we possess. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage and to think otherwise is to indulge in fantasy. It is a question of all or nothing: there are no half-measures when it comes to creating a worthwhile world. The future of humanity is not harmed but enhanced by the possibility of hell. It reveals the incredible amount of power we have been given to shape our destiny even on earth and far more so after death. The alternative is to believe we are insignificant worthless specks in the eternal darkness and doomed to disappear without leaving the slightest trace that we ever existed. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love would be no more than futile, meaningless illusions which lead to only one possible conclusion. If only matter exists nothing matters…

This is quite dramatic, but still a false dichotomy. I have not argued that free will is evil, and there is no good argument to show that free will necessarily implies eternal hell. Why does this have to be “all or nothing?” Why can’t God just punish us proportionally and then annihilate us? Isn’t there support for this theological position in the scriptures? There are many alternatives to belief in eternal hell that do not entail the belief that we are worthless, or unfree, or that destroy notions of morality, or necessitate that matter and energy are all that exist. I don’t believe any of those things, and I think I’m being logically consistent.

I am not arguing for atheism or agnosticism. I don’t consider myself a deist, or miso-theist, or any other kind of agnostic or atheist. All I’m saying is that the notion of eternal hell is radically evil and unfair, and that it serves as a defeater for the assertion that the Roman Catholic conception of God is the final and absolute truth of the universe.

This has been quite a good discussion and I appreciate your contributions. I think that this particular question is a giant hole in Christian apologetics actually. Aquinas (at link below) has a somewhat interesting answer to this problem, but it just makes everything seem so ugly. How can God be beautiful if the final reality of his universe is so ugly?

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3

 

[PRmerger]

You wrote, “There is no “God knows what someone will do or not do”.”

Are you saying that God is NOT Omniscient?

Saying that God knows what a person will or will not do is not the same as saying that God is responsible for the person doing or not doing something.

But to say that, "There is no “God knows what someone will do or not do”, is to say that there is no God that is Omniscient (All-knowing).

Is that what you are saying here, that God is NOT Omniscient (All-knowing)?

I am saying that there is no Past, Present or Future to God.

There is only the Eternal Now.

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger, you say:

Firstly, Pumpkin, could you please use the “quote” feature when you respond to people’s posts here?

Thanks.

I agree with you, and this is precisely the point: God is responsible (to some extent) for our actions right now since he has perfect knowledge and power. Any amount of human suffering and evil could potentially be justified by saying “well, we just don’t know how God is using this evil to bring about a greater good, but there is no reason to suppose he isn’t.” or something to that effect

Well, God is “responsible” only in that by His very nature as Creator He maintains our creation…that is, were He not to “think” us into existence, at every moment in eternity, we would not exist…

but He is no more responsible for my choice to type this word at this moment: ANGEL
than He is for Hitler’s choice to exterminate the Jews 70 years ago

The problem is that eternal torment is obviously gratuitous and does not bring about any discernible greater good.

Well, it brings about great good in me, because I certainly don’t want to go there and it serves as a noxious element, influencing my behavior, to be sure!

Even if the “greater good” of hell is that the blessed saints in heaven will be able to say “glad that didn’t happen to me ,” it still seems like the universe as a whole is quite revolting. This ugliness can’t be the final truth, it just can’t be.

Very Catholic, this!

The only reason I can sleep at night while knowing about the horrors so many human beings undergo in this life (war, starvation, loneliness, disease, rape, despair, etc) is because I am a selfish and uncaring person. I care mostly about myself, my family, my friends, and my community, and so I’m happy. Hell though, is so terrible and horrific, even a selfish person like myself can’t stand to think about it being the final reality for anyone.

Ok.

This seems to prove our point. Starvation exists, even though you wish it didn’t.

Eternal torment exists, even though you wish it didn’t.

But, imagine the coldness and callousness of the saints, for them to be happy in heaven with the knowledge of their endlessly suffering brothers and sisters in hell, regardless of how they got there.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel has suggested that perhaps those in heaven don’t have this knowledge. They have been given the gift of “forgetting” that there are any of their loved ones not in heaven with them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Have you any idea why it is that “believers” sometimes seem to have the hardest time believing in things that are happening in the present as opposed to believing in things that happened in the past?

Can you give me an example of things in the present that are so difficult to believe?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Firstly, Pumpkin, could you please use the “quote” feature when you respond to people’s posts here?

Thanks.

Well, God is “responsible” only in that by His very nature as Creator He maintains our creation…that is, were He not to “think” us into existence, at every moment in eternity, we would not exist…

but He is no more responsible for my choice to type this word at this moment: ANGEL
than He is for Hitler’s choice to exterminate the Jews 70 years ago

Well, it brings about great good in me, because I certainly don’t want to go there and it serves as a noxious element, influencing my behavior, to be sure!

Very Catholic, this!

Ok.

This seems to prove our point. Starvation exists, even though you wish it didn’t.

Eternal torment exists, even though you wish it didn’t.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel has suggested that perhaps those in heaven don’t have this knowledge. They have been given the gift of “forgetting” that there are any of their loved ones not in heaven with them.

I’m not sure how to use the “quote” feature but possibly I have figured it out?

1. Yes, God is equally responsible both for your typing, and for every single thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe, including the eternal doom of human beings and angels. No argument here.
2. Yes, I agree with the idea that the truth cannot also be ultimately ugly. No argument here.
3. The reality of evil in the world neither proves nor disproves God’s omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience. I understand this is a very contentious position, but I feel that some form of skeptical theism is a sufficient response to the so called “problem of evil.” However, the reality of hell would certainly serve as a defeater for the idea that God is good, just, beautiful, or omnipotent because hell is disproportionate and gratuitous evil that never ends.

Just think, if Fr. Groeschel’s idea is the truth, then this existence is so horrid and ugly that God needs to wipe our memories for us to be able to cope! Think about that. Consider, if we have “been given the gift of forgetting” then don’t we cease to be ourselves in some important way? If I were to, say, forget my own mother and father, or any of the people I’ve loved in life, wouldn’t I no longer truly be myself in a very meaningful sense? Why not?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure how to use the “quote” feature but possibly I have figured it out?

This may be helpful:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=7783

1. Yes, God is equally responsible both for your typing, and for every single thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe, including the eternal doom of human beings and angels. No argument here.

1. Yes, I agree with the idea that the truth cannot also be ultimately ugly. No argument here.

1. The reality of evil in the world neither proves nor disproves God’s omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience

You are correct.

Just like the reality of eternity in hell neither proves nor disproves God’s omnibenevolence.

I understand this is a very contentious position

It is not contentious at all. In fact, it is the Catholic position argued by numerous Catholic apologists.

Just think, if Fr. Groeschel’s idea is the truth, then this existence is so horrid and ugly that God needs to wipe our memories for us to be able to cope!

Indeed. Hell is horrid and ugly. Truer words were never spoken here on this thread.

Think about that. Consider, if we have “been given the gift of forgetting” then don’t we cease to be ourselves in some important way? If I were to, say, forget my own mother and father, or any of the people I’ve loved in life, wouldn’t I no longer truly be myself in a very meaningful sense? Why not?

Imagine this scenario: a boy is so attached to his toy truck he cannot imagine living without it. He asks his parents, “When I get married, can I bring my toy truck with me to my marriage bed?”

Parents responds: of course you can, but why would you want it?

He simply cannot fathom not wanting his toy truck.

But when he understands the profound beauty of being married, he understands that he will no longer need his toy truck.

 

[AKDee]

The best argument for hell I’ve ever heard was my J.P. Moreland, a theologian and Christian apologist who put forth that hell is simply separation from God for all eternity…and that the choice is not God’s, but our own. God respects our free will, including a choice not to be with Him throughout all eternity. People who reject God go to hell, not by His choice but by their own.

You can see how unpleasant hell would be just by looking around. Look around right now and look at places, groups or people who reject the Jesus. Those would be what’s left in hell, after believers move on to purgatory or heaven. Imagine if everyone around you was evil, not just a small percentage. Everyone. Everyone bent on fulfilling their own desires at the expense of anyone else. And God nowhere to be found, nowhere present. It would be awful. It would be hell. And it would be the choice of the people who are there, for rejecting God and choosing not to be with Him in the afterlife.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PRmerger:

It is not contentious at all. In fact, it is the Catholic position argued by numerous Catholic apologists.

It may not be contentious among some contemporary American Catholic apologists, but it is deeply contentious among the wider theological and philosophical community.

PRmerger:

Imagine this scenario: a boy is so attached to his toy truck he cannot imagine living without it. He asks his parents, “When I get married, can I bring my toy truck with me to my marriage bed?”

Parents responds: of course you can, but why would you want it?

He simply cannot fathom not wanting his toy truck.

But when he understands the profound beauty of being married, he understands that he will no longer need his toy truck.

I don’t think this illustration reflects what we’re discussing here. Should we discard our love for our fellow human beings like a plastic toy? Are our human relationships so trivial? If so, why does God punish and reward us eternally based upon our behavior in those relationships? If not, then how can it be right for us to discard them so casually and glibly?

Further, isn’t there a profound admission that hell really is a detestable and intolerable evil in the supposition that God will erase our memories in heaven? Consider: if hell is just and gives glory to God, then what is to forget? We should rejoice at the eternal torments of those in hell because their punishments are the result of God’s glory and holiness. Several fathers, doctors, and saints make this argument explicitly. The idea that God will make us “forget” to me admits that the doctrine of eternal hell really does fundamentally embarrass apologists and undercut the goodness of God.

Further, it couldn’t possibly be so simple to “erase” the memory of a person. For me to truly forget my own mother would do violence to my humanity in a deep way. I’d have to “forget” my entire childhood. I’d have to be under a kind of radical deception in my relationship with God and with any others who knew my mother as well. It isn’t so easy to just “cut someone out” of your memories. Is that what heaven will be? Radical, universal deception? I doubt it! In fact, this notion is childish, silly, and borderline offensive. I’m not offended though, because it is so preposterous as to be certainly untrue. :doh2:

Again, I wish there were a “emoticon” for laughter on this forum!

 

[PRmerger]

It may not be contentious among some contemporary American Catholic apologists, but it is deeply contentious among the wider theological and philosophical community.

I don’t think this illustration reflects what we’re discussing here. Should we discard our love for our fellow human beings like a plastic toy? Are our human relationships so trivial? If so, why does God punish and reward us eternally based upon our behavior in those relationships? If not, then how can it be right for us to discard them so casually and glibly?

I think you cannot fathom the Numinous, Pumpkin.

We, in our glorified state, will have no need for human memories, just as a husband, in the bliss of the marital embrace, has no need for a toy truck.

That you cannot understand this is analogous to the little boy who abjectly rejects, wholly and entirely, the idea that he simply cannot live without his toy.

And yet, when we grow and mature, we understand how little need we have for our toys.

Further, isn’t there a profound admission that hell really is a detestable and intolerable evil in the supposition that God will erase our memories in heaven?

Hell is indeed a detestable thought.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think you cannot fathom the Numinous, Pumpkin.

We, in our glorified state, will have no need for human memories, just as a husband, in the bliss of the marital embrace, has no need for a toy truck.

Therefore, we will no longer be ourselves in heaven in any meaningful sense. If we have no memories, then we’re not us! This seems obvious to me.

That you cannot understand this is analogous to the little boy who abjectly rejects, wholly and entirely, the idea that he simply cannot live without his toy.

And yet, when we grow and mature, we understand how little need we have for our toys.

From where does your special knowledge come, friend? How is it that you have insight into the “Numinous?” Please do share. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not intend to patronize me, so please give me the benefit of the doubt that I do not intend to mock you.

Hell is indeed a detestable thought.

Certainly so, but is it a detestable reality? If so, how can a good God ordain it for so many? If not, then why do we need to forget?

OK, I’ve had enough for today. This has been fun but I won’t be able to respond until later tomorrow. I could discuss this all day but have other duties.

 

[PRmerger]

Therefore, we will no longer be ourselves in heaven in any meaningful sense. If we have no memories, then we’re not us! This seems obvious to me.

I think this sounds much like the little boy who says that he simply cannot be himself without his toy truck.

He simply cannot fathom life without it. #unimaginable!

Until he experiences the marital embrace.

OK, I’ve had enough for today. This has been fun but I won’t be able to respond until later tomorrow. I could discuss this all day but have other duties.

BTW: good job with learning to use the “quote” feature!

 

[PRmerger]

From where does your special knowledge come, friend? How is it that you have insight into the “Numinous?” Please do share.

I am using logic, plain and simple, Pumpkin.

God is so utterly beyond, sooo…numinous…that your description of “I can’t be happy in heaven without the knowledge of my mom” belies your inability to grasp the profound majesty of being in the Beatific Presence.

Certainly so, but is it a detestable reality?

This sounds a lot like, “I don’t like the idea of it, therefore it doesn’t exist”.

We are agreed that there is no logical contradiction to God existing and hell existing, right?

If so, how can a good God ordain it for so many?

I don’t know that God has ordained it for “so many”.

That’s certainly not Catholic teaching, to be sure!

 

[Bradski]

It would be very odd if only good people had children. In fact it would cast doubt on whether we have free will at all.

It is also simplistic to classify everyone as good or evil. How does one determine whether a person is sufficiently evil not to be allowed to exist?

No-one said that only good people should have children. But you said that the reason God does not ‘disallow’ someone to exist is because it would deprive their descendants of a life. That is obviously wrong because God knows that someone - like Bryant, would have no descendants. And in fact, by allowing him his life, It means that 35 others are cut short and countless of their descendants deprived of the opportunity of life.

And this is not a question of us determining who should exist or not. It’s God’s call. And whatever God’s reason was for allowing Bryant to exist, it wasn’t to protect his progeny.

Only God knows how many descendants people would have and how many of them would commit atrocities.

Exactly. So if Bryant has none, and will never have any, then there has to be another reason for allowing him to exist other than giving his dependents an opportunity for life. QED.

How many Bryants is Gandhi worth?

Hard to put a number on it, but very many indeed.

The question is addressed to a person who doesn’t believe in God and has no rational basis for belief in equality.

You must be confusing me with someone who thinks that we are all born equal. Which is an odd notion, to put it mildly. We are all slaves to our genetic inheritance. I guess we all have a limited opportunity to make the best of the cards that are dealt, but no, we are not all born equally.

However, the very concept of justice demands that we should be treated equally.

Can you give me an example of things in the present that are so difficult to believe?

Global warming? Evolution?

IJust think, if Fr. Groeschel’s idea is the truth, then this existence is so horrid and ugly that God needs to wipe our memories for us to be able to cope!

Good point (and you’ve made a few). That scenario is nothing short of horrifying. Not that I believe it’s credible in any way. Imagine me asking PR if she was worried about her children going to hell and she responded: ‘Not really, because if they do end up there, God will make me forget about them, so I’ll be fine’.

No way, PR. No way. And you don’t have to be in heaven to think about people you know who have died.

But then again, what you imagine it to be and the people you might think deserve it are surely different to everyone else’s idea.

We have descriptions of it from simply being a separation from God and non existence all the way through to Dante’s version complete with flames and pitchfork wielding demons. But I’ll tell you what. Nobody believes it be be eternal torment. Anyone who suggests that eternal torment is acceptable for anyone, even with the usual cop out of ‘well, they chose it themselves’ is either not being honest with themselves or is a borderline psychopath.

And there’s one easy way to find out.

Here’s a torture chamber. It has in it the worst devices you can possibly imagine for causing the worst possible pain. Pick someone that you think deserves to be in there for a year, being tortured constantly, hour after hour with no respite. Anyone from history will do or just make up someone and their crimes.

Now imagine that everyone you know, your partner, your kids, your parents, your friends…if they do something that God finds abhorrent, then in they go as well. Tell me that you’d not be rigid with fear every second of every day for the rest of your life.

In fact, I think it’s safe to say that you would quite literally go mad in a very short time.

 

[GEddie]

Human memories are not to be compared to a toy truck! They make us “us,” particularly when both the consciousness, and the natural body have been lost.

And, whatever anybody may say, no-one has “memories” of hell; therefore there would be no need to erase anybody’s memories.

ICXC NIKA.