The Fear of Hell

[PumpkinCookie]

PRMerger,

The problem with the idea that God can just erase the memories we have of particular persons who may be in hell is that some of these memories are connected to other memories we have in an intimate way. Let’s say that my mother is going to go to hell. (God forbid!) In order for God to erase the memory of her, he would also have to make me totally misunderstand the relationship between myself and my father, and my siblings, and anyone else who knew me and my mother. Right? If my father and I were able to make it to heaven, but my mother wasn’t there, then exactly how would we understand our relationship to each other?

It is not so easy to “erase” the memory of an entire human being who is known and loved by other human beings without doing serious violence to those who had relationships with the “erased” human. I would say that this “erasure” would require either massive deception or a kind of spiritual anesthesia. This kind of deception or anesthesia would be so pervasive that I think it would be right to assert that the people in heaven are only tangentially related to the people on earth whom they might have been at one time.

In order to erase my memories of my mother, huge portions of my memory would also have to be erased and thus I would no longer be “myself” in an essential way. I agree that we are not our memories, but our memories are what make us “us” in an essential way. Now, imagine that not only my mother, but tons of people who I knew and loved in life are in eternal hell. What could possibly be left of my memory, and how can we say that I would be “myself” in any meaningful sense?

Your analogy of the boy and his truck fails because it doesn’t illustrate a rejoinder to my assertion. I’m not saying I can’t be happy in heaven without memories of my mother. I’m saying that it is impossible for me to be myself if all memories contingent upon the existence of my mother are erased. Your heaven is filled with a handful of anesthetized, deceived spirits that are only the remains of real, authentic human beings. What a depressing place. Not as horrific as hell, but why would it matter if we go there?

Again, the point you have declined to answer: why would God create a universe so horrible that he would have to erase our memories of it in order for us to be happy?
Does that sound like the work of a “loving father?”

I agree with the assertion that only a sociopath or an utterly selfish and callous person could tolerate the idea that even a single consciousness will experience eternal torment. I also agree with his assertion that (a huge majority of) the people who parrot “belief” in eternal hell don’t actually believe it, because it is most assuredly an insane notion.

 

[GEddie]

Are you sure you don’t want to re-think this, Pumpkin?

Your memories today are surely different than the memories you had in, say, 2008, when you first joined CAFs.

And I don’t mean that you’ve simply accumulated more memories from 2008 to 2015.

I mean that what your memories in 2008, of, say, what you ate for breakfast in 2007, are different from the memories you currently have. That is, while you may have remembered something that occurred in 2007 in 2008, you have no memory of this today.

Are you really saying that you are a completely different person today because your memories are different than in 2008. If so, who were you in 2008? And who are you now?

How have you changed ontologically due to your different memories?

Answer: you have changed NOT AT ALL. You were PumpkinCookie in 2008.

You are PumpkinCookie in 2015, even if you have no recollection of what you ate for breakfast in 2007.

And you’ll be PumpkinCookie in heaven, even if you have no memories of your mom.

Dear PRM:

Methinks PC is coming from the position that I was a few hours ago, concerning the entirety of the human memory, not trivial examples. She seems to think you are arguing for the heavenly erasure of the human mind, as I did.

And methinks you are over-arguing for the **unimportance **of the human memory. It is a large part of who we are, particularly after the consciousness and the body are lost.

Are you really so afraid of family members going to Hell that you think only an erasure from your mind will allow you to be comfortable in Heaven? Relax and breathe. Hell is probably a **far ** rarer outcome for human beings than any of us imagines.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying that it is impossible for me to be myself if all memories contingent upon the existence of my mother are erased.

And I am saying that this is…ridiculous.

You are not your memories.

Your memories today are very, very different from your memories in 2008. Very. Different.

Surely you’re not going to assert that ontologically you were not PumpkinCookie in 2008, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Equality, it has been said, is medicine, not food.

Human beings are not innately equal: not in their bodies nor in their minds;

We are INNATELY equal, Eddie, in our dignity and worth.

We are agreed on that as Catholics, yes?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I mean that what your memories in 2008, of, say, what you ate for breakfast in 2007, are different from the memories you currently have. That is, while you may have remembered something that occurred in 2007 in 2008, you have no memory of this today.

You are PumpkinCookie in 2015, even if you have no recollection of what you ate for breakfast in 2007.

And you’ll be PumpkinCookie in heaven, even if you have no memories of your mom.

That you would draw a comparison of my memories of breakfast in 2007 to the relationship I have with my own mother is both shocking, offensive, and laughable.

I agree with you that the minutiae of memory like our breakfast items has a correspondingly small effect on our essences. However, human relationships are made out of memories. To erase the memories of my mother would mean to utterly destroy the relationship I had with her (except the brute fact of my biological existence). Further, to destroy her memory would also fundamentally alter the mutual relationships we had with everyone else.

Just think a little more about this. I’m sure other will be able to point out the issue here. I won’t be able to respond until later. Best, Pumpkincookie.

 

[GEddie]

And I am saying that this is…ridiculous.

You are not your memories.

Your memories today are very, very different from your memories in 2008. Very. Different.

Surely you’re not going to assert that ontologically you were not PumpkinCookie in 2008, right?

But you wouldn’t argue that persons do not change over time, and that a large part of what changes them is experience and memory?

Really, what keeps your personhood stable is either 1) your memory, 2) the stream of consciousness in your head, or 3) your body.

In regard to a life after death, we can eliminate 2 and 3 for obvious reasons, as well as 3b) genetic DNA, which is strictly part of the body.

So 1), memory, becomes critical to your individuality.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

We are INNATELY equal, Eddie, in our dignity and worth.

We are agreed on that as Catholics, yes?

Affirmative.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PRmerger]

And methinks you are over-arguing for the **unimportance **of the human memory. It is a large part of who we are, particularly after the consciousness and the body are lost.

I think I am giving memories their exact worth, Eddie–neither dismissing them, nor equating them with who we are.

Are you really so afraid of family members going to Hell that you think only an erasure from your mind will allow you to be comfortable in Heaven?

sigh!

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you commented without actually following the dialogue, but now…really? You’re going to comment without actually…er…following the dialogue?

As I have stated, already, in this dialogue, I am not afraid at all of family members going to hell. Not afraid at all.

I’ve stated this already. Twice.

To wit (emphasis added):

Actually, there’s no need to speculate what I would say. I’m right here.

Here’s how the conversation ensues:

Bradski: Aren’t you worried, PR, about your children going to hell?

PR: No, Brad. I am not worried. The entire Christian ethos is about hope. “Be not afraid” is our mantra. I certainly hope for their salvation, my salvation, the salvation of DH, your salvation, as well as the salvation of the entire world.

In fact, dear Brad, if you were more familiar with Catholicism, you would know that we have already won. Sin was defeated with Christ’s passion, death and resurrection–we were saved, we are being saved, and we hope to be saved.

We remain joyful, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ.

Firstly, I was speculating about the possibility.

Secondly, you do understand that it is simply the memory of a loved one who is in hell, right? Not our aggregate memories.

Not sure why you believe that removal of that memory–only 1 person out of all of our memories–would equate to loss of our personhood in its entirety.

And remember, this is only IF our loved one is indeed in hell. And what are the chances of that?

Probably pretty slim, personally speaking.

 

[PRmerger]

We are INNATELY equal, Eddie, in our dignity and worth.

We are agreed on that as Catholics, yes?

Affirmative.

ICXC NIKA

So let’s just all get on the same page here: when we are talking about all human persons being EQUAL, we mean–we are equal in our inherent dignity and worth. From conception to natural death.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And I am saying that this is…ridiculous.

You are not your memories.

Your memories today are very, very different from your memories in 2008. Very. Different.

Surely you’re not going to assert that ontologically you were not PumpkinCookie in 2008, right?

What do you mean by your assertion that my memories are “different” today than in 2008? Do you mean that I have more of them? Do you mean I have fewer of the older ones? Either way, it doesn’t matter. I’m not sure about your use of the word “ontologically” in this case, but suffice it to say I’m not asserting that I am a different being (whatever that means) than in 2008. However, if a Cartesian demon came by and erased all memories contingent upon my mother, father, closest friends, etc…then I would argue that my essence or “soul” will have been altered and that I am now a different person in a substantial way.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to understand how the erasure of entire human relationships from one’s memory would fundamentally alter (destroy) personhood. Sure, the fact that I have forgotten what I ate for breakfast in 2007 doesn’t seem to destroy my soul. But, having the memory of those with whom I’ve had significant relationships totally erased from my memory truly would destroy my soul in an essential way. I really would cease to be “myself,” in my opinion.

Consider, if I were able to totally erase your memory and supplant it with the memories of a complete stranger, would I not have destroyed you in a very real and essential way? Sure, your body continues to exist, but your mind has been blotted out, and you basically cease to exist. If I destroyed your memories in this way, “you” wouldn’t even know it since the continuity of memory would have been erased. If the stranger’s memories has also been erased, the stranger wouldn’t know what had happened either. Can you really say this thing I’ve created is…you? I doubt it!

In fact, you are able to imagine this scenario, and we are able to discuss this meaningfully precisely because we do consider memory to be essential to personhood. If we didn’t, then you would intuit that the erasure of your memories and subsequent implantation of a stranger’s memories would “make no difference” or something like that. The alternative is unintelligible precisely because we differentiate persons based upon biology, location, and remembered experience.

We’ve gotten far off-topic. Closer to the original topic:

Why would a “loving father” create a universe so horrible that he would have to destroy our minds in order for us to be happy in heaven?

If you say that erasing entire human relationships from our memories isn’t the same as destroying our minds in an essential way, then we’re done here, and we can let the reader decide.

If you say that God won’t erase our minds, then how can anyone but an utterly cruel and callous monster possibly be happy with the knowledge that so many of his human brothers and sisters are being tormented for eternity?

Also, for the record, I’m a man, though I think the misdirection caused by my forum name is funny.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Sorry, I meant the exact opposite! It would be very odd if only good people are childless! How would you explain that?

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.

They would be only deprived of the opportunity of life in this world - which wouldn’t be an irrevocable disadvantage whereas Bryant wouldn’t exist in any shape or form.

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.

Precisely! That is why the objection is worthless. It is not for us with our limited insight and knowledge to decide who should be born. We don’t know, for example, how many people benefited from Bryant’s life before he went beserk.

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.

There is and what counts more than anything else is our power to choose what to believe and how to live. The price of that gift is the reality of evil.

How many Bryants is Gandhi worth?

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

There is no number because everyone has an equal right to life regardless of all other considerations.

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean by your assertion that my memories are “different” today than in 2008? Do you mean that I have more of them? Do you mean I have fewer of the older ones? Either way, it doesn’t matter.

Egg-zactly. It doesn’t matter. Whether you have some memories, more memories, fewer memories, you’re not a different person because of your lack of memories of certain times in your life.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve gotten far off-topic.

Indeed.

Closer to the original topic:

Why would a “loving father” create a universe so horrible that he would have to destroy our minds in order for us to be happy in heaven?

Because there has to be a place for people who find God’s love so odious.

God is not such a master torturer that He would inflict His love upon those who find it so repugnant.

Thus, He created hell.

For those who find God’s love abhorrent.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Your notion of hell is unreasonable. Would you choose that fate if you knew you could avoid it by trying to make amends for the needless suffering you have caused either deliberately or through negligence?** Hell is not inflicted on us against our will. **We are given every opportunity to acknowledge our guilt and become less unselfish - in Purgatory. It is only if we are unrepentant and determined to reject God’s love we are not fit to be in heaven.

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.

You overlook or reject the primary purpose of Christ’s mission which was to save the lost sheep. He told us there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons. He died for everyone not just the select few. He condemned evil ferociously because we need to be warned about all the temptations that can drag us down and make us inhuman and callous but we have to remember the Jewish use of hyperbole and concrete images that even a child can understand. His aim was to strike fear of hell into our hearts because we are our own worst enemies and can easily become self-indulgent and corrupt. The worst atrocities are committed by those who fail to recognise they are fallible and imperfect. They are convinced they are superior to others and have the right to inflict their beliefs and values on everyone else. They are the ones likely to finish up in hell but even they are not beyond redemption:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

NB “the world”, not a small minority.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

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.
It doesn’t proceed from God. It is self-inflicted for the sake of power and delight in absolute power over oneself.

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.

Their putative fate is not biological but diabolical!

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).

It’s not a question of risk but choice.

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.

Total independence is the logical outcome of free will, highly desirable but not beneficial.

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…

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?” It doesn’t! Purgatory is an alternative.

Why can’t God just punish us proportionally and then annihilate us?

That is quite unnecessary because our vices incur their own punishment and they also give us great satisfaction. Nor does any rational being wish to be annihilated as long as existence offers some degree of fulfilment. No one would choose to be evil if there were nothing to be gained from revolt against God. It wouldn’t make sense to opt for sheer, unmitigated torture nor would a loving Father inflict it on those for whom His Son chose to suffer and die.

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.

No impartial interpretation of Christ’s teaching can ignore the distinction between the sheep and the goats. There are too many parables on the subject to dismiss it as an aberration or exaggeration. Logical consistency demands a bifurcation of reality given the facts of evil and free will. Annihilation is out of the question because God is the Creator not the Destroyer. To create us in His own image implies that we are eternal and indestructible. The insatiable lust for power is also an essential factor to take into account in any balanced explanation of man’s behaviour, together with all the evidence for the consequences of original sin in our bloodstained history. Arthur Koestler believed there is a streak of insanity in the human psyche - which is true but it is culpable insanity.

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.

There is no doubt that hell is evil! It is not unfair because no one is compelled to be evil.

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?

The final reality is not ugly but beautiful because it embodies the supreme expression of creative freedom without which love could not exist. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. Everything else fades into insignificance:

38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. 39 No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38-39

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Sometimes we hear unbelievers say they cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare for us a place of everlasting suffering. Such a God is petty and vindictive. How would you answer this critique of the Christian hell?

Well, to take an extreme example, what’s a fitting punishment for Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot?

And if there is to be any real justice, shouldn’t their victims be able to see their punishment, and know that it is just?

Which implies the requirement for life after death if this is to happen at all.

Secondly we’ll judge ourselves.

I’ve said ad infinitum the night my father died, he appeared in my room. He started with an apology, we argued and talked, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream, and then disappeared. It was also obvious that something was coming for him. It was a bit more than the cop-out it’s the mere absence of God.

However during the proceedings it was clear he was judging himself, and saying things that he would never have said prior to death, when everything was our fault.

For example -

“… I can’t believe how cruel and stupid I’ve been!”

“… I’ve been an absolute mongrel to you!”

“… There’s no hope for me! All I was expected to do was to look after my family, and I didn’t even do that!”

“… I did it deliberately!” (His cruel behaviour and destruction of my confidence).

And so on. As someone who knew him very well indeed, I can assure you that he wouldn’t have admitted to this sort of behaviour prior to death. Not one bit. It would all have been our fault.

But when he found himself facing the eternal throne, he judged himself in his own words.

Which reminds me of Christ’s saying -

Matthew 12:37 NIV

“For by your words you will be acquitted, and by **your words **you will be condemned.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Their putative fate is not biological but diabolical!

I thought you would vociferously argue that their fate would be due to their own choice? Why would it be “diabolical” in this case? Further, yes, their eternal torment would the result of their choices, but their existence would be our (and God’s) responsibility. If my theoretical children were to end up in hell, I would rightly blame myself to some extent since they wouldn’t have existed at all (and thus would have been better off) if I hadn’t biologically created them in the first place.

It’s not a question of risk but choice.

But it is a question of risk in the sense that we do not know if we have been “given the grace of final perseverance” until we’re already dead. For all any of us know, we’ll be continuing our chat ad infinitum whilst being tormented forever and forever!

Total independence is the logical outcome of free will, highly desirable but not beneficial.

To me it would seem that “total independence” would require both omnipotence and omniscience, so I’m not sure what you mean. Neither here nor there I suppose…

It doesn’t! Purgatory is an alternative.

So, I’m guessing you are of the opinion that most humans spend time in purgatory rather than eternal hell? I think this is a minority opinion among the saints, popes, doctors, and councils of the Roman Catholic church. Maybe you’re right. Let’s hope so.

That is quite unnecessary because our vices incur their own punishment and they also give us great satisfaction. Nor does any rational being wish to be annihilated as long as existence offers some degree of fulfilment. No one would choose to be evil if there were nothing to be gained from revolt against God. It wouldn’t make sense to opt for sheer, unmitigated torture nor would a loving Father inflict it on those for whom His Son chose to suffer and die.

So, you’re saying that hell offers a degree of fulfillment? It’s just a somewhat unpleasant place where everyone gets to indulge all of their vices? Just a slightly uncomfortable, maybe not-so-nice place for people to experience “total independence?” Everyone wants to be there, and the punishments are only self-inflicted? How does that jive with “the lake of fire?” or the “outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth?” Just some good ol’ Jewish hyperbole? Maybe! Then again…maybe eternal torment as defined by the RCC is a result of the same mistake…maybe the “eternal” aspect of hell is annihilation (which never ends of course). Many Jews believed just that. Maybe Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, or pagan mystery cults influenced early believers and tainted their concept of “hell.” Possible no?

Annihilation is out of the question because God is the Creator not the Destroyer. To create us in His own image implies that we are eternal and indestructible.

This isn’t good enough evidence. I might as well say “to create us in his own image we have to be omnipotent and omniscient.” Are you saying God doesn’t have the freedom to annihilate? Are you saying it isn’t in his nature? What of drowning the whole earth? What of killing the first-born of the Egyptians? What of the Amalekites? What of sodom and gomorrah?

The insatiable lust for power is also an essential factor to take into account in any balanced explanation of man’s behaviour, together with all the evidence for the consequences of original sin in our bloodstained history. Arthur Koestler believed there is a streak of insanity in the human psyche - which is true but it is culpable insanity.

I think there are other anthropologies that have equal explanatory power to the RC version of the “original sin” theory. In humanity I see suffering caused by a mistaken quest for happiness. To be sure, some people think power is their happiness, and maybe these people cause the most harm, I don’t know. But, suffice it to say that the RC “original sin” postulate is by no means the most convincing explanation for the human condition, in my opinion.

There is no doubt that hell is evil! It is not unfair because no one is compelled to be evil.

This is what no one seems to understand. Hopefully the careful reader will get it:

We may not be compelled to be evil, but we are compelled to exist!!! We are compelled to exist, by a being who knows infallibly, before we exist, that we will choose to be evil and incur unending punishment…and yet he chooses to create anyway. That makes this being an “accessory before the fact.” For anyone well versed in this argument, they will know that this argument is neither original to me nor particularly well stated. But, I have never seen a satisfactory response to this particular issue.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The final reality is not ugly but beautiful because it embodies the supreme expression of creative freedom without which love could not exist. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. Everything else fades into insignificance

Hell is the “supreme expression of creative freedom without which love could not exist?” WOW! Sounds like the greatest art school in existence! Who wouldn’t want to go there? I’m joking of course, but your euphemistic description of hell is not helpful to this discussion, in my opinion. The RCC’s saints, popes, councils, and doctors all agree that hell is a place of unending punishment inflicted by the divine wrath for the purpose of satisfying the divine justice. “Fire” doesn’t begin to describe the horror of God’s wrath. I have quoted several saints in prior posts on this thread. They are very clear: we will be tormented bodily, and God will give us miraculous flesh so that it can be continuously consumed in order to indefinitely prolong our sufferings without being totally destroyed. This is what we’re discussing here.

 

[PRmerger]

We may not be compelled to be evil, but we are compelled to exist!!! We are compelled to exist, by a being who knows infallibly, before we exist, that we will choose to be evil and incur unending punishment…and yet he chooses to create anyway. That makes this being an “accessory before the fact.”

There is God knowing that “we will choose”. All is in the Eternal Now for Him. There is only knowing in the Now.

So just as God has no blame for my choice at this very moment, He also has no blame for my choice in 2008, nor my choice in 2019.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Well, to take an extreme example, what’s a fitting punishment for Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot?

And if there is to be any real justice, shouldn’t their victims be able to see their punishment, and know that it is just?

Which implies the requirement for life after death if this is to happen at all.

How about a billion years of mind-bending torture for each person who experienced any negative thing whatsoever because of them? Is that enough for you? Sure, their victims can watch and cheer. Does that set things aright?

I don’t think so, but even this would be more just than eternal hell.

I am sorry to read your story about your father. I would have literally gone insane from grief if I knew for a fact my father were in hell. How utterly devastating! I am so sorry you believe this.