The Fear of Hell

[PumpkinCookie]

From the story posted by Techno2000:

“Would that I had never existed! Would that I could now annihilate myself! Escape these tortures! No pleasure would equal that with which I would abandon my existence, as a garment of ashes which is lost in nothingness. But I must continue to exist as I chose to make myself - as a ruined person.”

-Woman in hell speaking to her still living friend in a vision.

I agree! This intuition seems as solid as any. Is she insane for wishing that she had never been born or could be annihilated now that she is being tormented in hell? I don’t think so. If this is the way the universe really is, then please, someone come totally wipe my memory and stick me in a straight-jacket. I just can’t deal with the thought that anyone, much less “the majority of humanity” would have to face this for eternity.

 

[Techno2000]

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I agree with you that no one would choose to be tortured, yet the consensus among popes, councils, saints, doctors, mystics, and visionaries is that hell is a place of profound torment. Just read the link posted by Techno2000 for details.

You say that people choose hell, so therefore people choose torture. Yes, that is insane! And yet, it seems like you are suggesting this is the case. I think they are choosing sin, and that eternal torment is the punishment attached to the sin. If people could sin and get away with it, they would. Right? I don’t think that is fair either. But eternal torment can’t be fair in and of itself.

Yes I agree. Our existence is totally “contingent” upon God at all times. We are by no means necessary beings. This is precisely why we can be annihilated without any trouble at all. God doesn’t have to “destroy” us, he simply has to “let go” and cease to sustain our being. That doesn’t mean he is a “destroyer” anymore than it means he is a “destroyer” for failing to create unicorns and fairies.

You say we have the “right” to retain our lives (by this I take you to mean existence). Says who? If God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and the ground of all being, to which court can we appeal our “rights?” Where does God say “you have the right to exist?” You yourself just said that existence is a “luxury.” Some would call it a “gift.” Does it make sense to demand a “right” to a “gift?” This doesn’t mean murder is OK, but it does seem to make it OK for God to let go of our existence.

Let’s just get some agreement here: is hell a place of eternal conscious torment? Yes or No?

How you respond will determine how I will be able to respond. I am still unclear about your position. Sorry but I seem to need things to be spelled out.

God doesn’t force you to go to Heaven.

 

[Techno2000]

This story is devastating! I hope and pray that this isn’t the truth about reality. May the true God deliver us all from such a terrible fate!

The believer - I say this with gnashing of teeth - who contemplates Christ on the cross, with arms extended, will end by loving Him."

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Techno2000’s website is actually full of interesting stuff. Check out St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s treatise on hell. Unimaginably horrific.

olrl.org/doctrine/hellbelike.shtml

How can this be the work of a loving father?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000’s website is actually full of interesting stuff. Check out St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s treatise on hell. Unimaginably horrific.

olrl.org/doctrine/hellbelike.shtml

How can this be the work of a loving father?

If the Devil would repent, Hell would cease to exist.

 

[Bradski]

From the story posted by Techno2000:

“Would that I had never existed! Would that I could now annihilate myself! Escape these tortures! No pleasure would equal that with which I would abandon my existence, as a garment of ashes which is lost in nothingness. But I must continue to exist as I chose to make myself - as a ruined person.”

-Woman in hell speaking to her still living friend in a vision.

I have to say she is well spoken for someone who is being tortured. ‘Would that I could now…’ ? I don’t know anyone who speaks like that unless it’s a BBC period production and maybe Hugh Grant is saying it after being turned down by Emma Thompson (read it again with him in mind – it fits remarkably well). With a little editing you could write it in iambic pentameter. Almost Shakespearean. Why don’t we all try it out loud. But for a realistic rendering, dip your hand into some boiling water and keep it there while you recite it.

I guess we can draw some conclusions from this. Maybe hell isn’t as painful as it has been made out to be. Mildly uncomfortable at worst, if the above is to be treated as reasonably accurate. Or perhaps we get time out to attend visions (very Pythonesque scenarios present themselves here). Or maybe, just maybe, somebody made it up.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry but I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I agree with you that no one would choose to be tortured, yet the consensus among popes, councils, saints, doctors, mystics, and visionaries is that hell is a place of profound torment. Just read the link posted by Techno2000 for details.

To choose evil knowing it inevitably leads to suffering is equivalent to choosing self-inflicted torture.

You say that people choose hell, so therefore people choose torture. Yes, that is insane! And yet, it seems like you are suggesting this is the case. I think they are choosing sin, and that eternal torment is the punishment attached to the sin. If people could sin and get away with it, they would. Right? I don’t think that is fair either. But eternal torment can’t be fair in and of itself.

It is fair because no one is compelled to punish themselves. They know full well what they are doing and are prepared to pay the price. God doesn’t even come into the picture because they alone are entirely responsible for their decision.

Yes I agree. Our existence is totally “contingent” upon God at all times. We are by no means necessary beings. This is precisely why we can be annihilated without any trouble at all. God doesn’t have to “destroy” us, he simply has to “let go” and cease to sustain our being. That doesn’t mean he is a “destroyer” anymore than it means he is a “destroyer” for failing to create unicorns and fairies.

It amounts to destruction because God created us for love and happiness of which we deprive ourselves.

You say we have the “right” to retain our lives (by this I take you to mean existence). Says who? If God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and the ground of all being, to which court can we appeal our “rights?” Where does God say “you have the right to exist?” You yourself just said that existence is a “luxury.” Some would call it a “gift.” Does it make sense to demand a “right” to a “gift?” This doesn’t mean murder is OK, but it does seem to make it OK for God to let go of our existence.

Might is not right! Power does not justify any form of destruction, let alone annihilation. To create us entails responsibility towards us especially when the motive is love. The Creator incurs an obligation to respect our existence and our decisions even though they are against His Will and separate us from life with Him in heaven. To destroy us would amount to rejecting Himself because we are made in His image and likeness.
It is a facile solution that doesn’t correspond to the purpose of giving us free will.

Let’s just get some agreement here: is hell a place of eternal conscious torment? Yes or No?

To be precise, hell is not a place but a conscious state of mind which is a just punishment for one’s vices. Schadenfreude is a good example*.* It is only right that those who enjoy the suffering of others should suffer as the result of their own vicious enjoyment. Those who cheat others cheat themselves because they lose their integrity and become corrupt like poisonous, rotten fruit. Not only do those who detest others become detestable they also detest themselves because they know they are detestable. Yet they allow their lust for power and pleasure to overcome the misery it causes them. They become divided from others and also internally divided.

St Augustine summed up our predicament perfectly:

"You made us for Yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in You.”

How you respond will determine how I will be able to respond. I am still unclear about your position. Sorry but I seem to need things to be spelled out.

No need to apologise. Such a complex issue needs to be clarified as far as possible. I hope I have made the concept of hell more intelligible.

 

[PRmerger]

Or neither.

True, true.

 

[PRmerger]

How else do you tell?

By looking into their heart?

Oh, wait. We can’t do that.

So I guess you really can’t judge someone’s worth, except to understand that each and every human person has inherent worth and dignity.

Otherwise, you look at, say, this action:

http://www.crimeindelhi.com/wp-cont...821-robbery-of-the-businessman-in-its-car.jpg

And think: the gunman is scum!

But then you find out that the driver is on his way to torture your puppy, and you think, wait, the driver is scum!

So, pretty much it’s a bad paradigm to judge someone’s worth by his actions.

And that’s why I never say someone is in hell…even if he dragged someone around by her hair when she burned his meal.

 

[PRmerger]

I wouldn’t go that far. God is responsible to some degree for every single thing that happens in the universe, including our DNA, the composition of our brains, and all of our life experiences. It seems like those things influence our thoughts. But, I would possibly concede that our greatest degree of freedom is inside our own minds, yes.

Egg-zactly! You got it!

God’s Thoughts sustain our universe, but we are responsible for our own actions.

I am not arguing that eternal hell doesn’t exist because I don’t like it. I’m arguing that if eternal hell exists, then whatever is responsible for this universe is most certainly not God the loving father.

BINGO! Yes!!! :dancing::extrahappy:

Whatever is responsible for the universe of hell is most certainly not God, but our free will.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I stated precisely what the RCC does not teach. They do not teach that God created the universe “way back at the big bang” but rather that God “continuously sustains” our existence. I did not place the words correctly, and this has caused the ambiguity. I should have said:

“Further, the RCC teaches not ----] that God has created the universe [only] way back at the big bang, but that God sustains the existence of every single thing.”

The “only” is ambiguously placed.

Ambiguous?

If you mean, “incorrectly”, then I accept your correction.

And let’s take this statement as you say you meant it:

“Further, the RCC teaches not that God has created the universe only way back at the big bang, but that God sustains the existence of every single thing.”

The above is nonsensical. They are 2 phrases which are nonsequiturs.

And you are still unable to correctly articulate Catholic teaching.

The CC does indeed teach that God created the universe, at some beginning. (If it was via a “Big Bang”, the CC hasn’t asserted so…but it does teach that the universe did indeed have a beginning).

 

[Bradski]

To choose evil knowing it inevitably leads to suffering is equivalent to choosing self-inflicted torture.

Any ideas on why this idea of hell is so ephemeral? Here’s an idea.

When we threaten someone with punishment (through the legal process), the punishment is actually a known fact. It isn’t something we get from paintings or scripture or cranky visions printed on yellow paper for 7 cents a copy and ‘I Went To Hell And It Was Really Nasty’ books and DVDs. We all know exactly what the consequences are.

So forget all this bulldust about people ‘choosing’ hell. Forget all this business about it being their own fault that they are there – they were given fair warning. It’s all Sunday School stories and demons and pitchforks and no-one really believes it as a place of eternal torment no more than I do. As I’ve said before, if they do say they believe it they are either playing a little loose with the truth or they are borderline psychopathic.

So this is the idea. How about God just gives us a preview. Just like a 2 minute trailer for the next Bond movie. He’s God, so I’m sure he’d know how to make it so that we didn’t think it was just us being delusional. And in any case, if we all saw the same thing…well, trust me – I’d be convinced. How many people do you think would ‘decide’ to commit evil then? We’d still have our free will but we would know, with absolute certainty, what using that free will for evil means would entail.

So I guess you really can’t judge someone’s worth, except to understand that each and every human person has inherent worth and dignity.

So we’re all exactly equal in worth and dignity? Me and Pol Pot? You and Bryant? Ah, but there’s the word ‘inherent’ slipped in there. With which I have no problem. Because every single thing we do either adds to our dignity and worth or subtracts from it. Like dragging women around by their hair. With the net result…yeah, we’re all different.

And that’s why I never say someone is in hell…even if he dragged someone around by her hair when she burned his meal.

But it doesn’t stop you believing that that is where he belongs. Tortured eternally.

It seems to me that justice demands that he be in hell.

Two questions still remain: Did you take the blue pill when I started beating him and as Mrs. Bryant, do you try for that son you wanted?

 

[Techno2000]

So this is the idea. How about God just gives us a preview. Just like a 2 minute trailer for the next Bond movie. He’s God, so I’m sure he’d know how to make it so that we didn’t think it was just us being delusional. And in any case, if we all saw the same thing…well, trust me – I’d be convinced. How many people do you think would ‘decide’ to commit evil then? We’d still have our free will but we would know, with absolute certainty, what using that free will for evil means would entail.

Because God would like you to choose him out of free will, and not be forced by fear of Hell, blessed are those who believe without having to see.

 

[Bradski]

Because God would like you to choose him out of free will, and not be forced by fear of Hell.

OK, that’s good. He can get rid of it then. Free up the real estate. Use it for storage or build a den.

Unless of course it’s there as a punishment (which is what some people have told me). In which case…my point still stands. Let us know, definitely, without any doubt, with no questions asked, exactly what we’d be in for. Because at the moment, there are as many ideas of what it entails as there are Christians entailing them.

By the way, if you were Mr. Bryant, do you have a son?

 

[Techno2000]

By the way, if you were Mr. Bryant, do you have a son?

 

[Bradski]

Sorry…post 865. I thought you might have read it. To save you looking it up:

Your name is Bryant. You just got married. You are looking forward to having a son. You will call him Martin. Then you have a glimpse of Port Arthur on the day of the massacre.

You see the people being shot at point blank range, husbands trying to protect their wives, women trying to protect their children. You see him follow the twelve year old girl as she runs from her murdered mother and baby sister and you watch as your son kills her as she cries.

Do you have that son? Because, hey, it won’t be your fault if you do. You’ll teach him to make his own mind up about things and if he chooses to do evil, then who can blame you!

Just a hypothetical on free will and God’s involvement in the evils of this world.

 

[GEddie]

Sorry…post 865. I thought you might have read it. To save you looking it up:

Your name is Bryant. You just got married. You are looking forward to having a son. You will call him Martin. Then you have a glimpse of Port Arthur on the day of the massacre.

You see the people being shot at point blank range, husbands trying to protect their wives, women trying to protect their children. You see him follow the twelve year old girl as she runs from her murdered mother and baby sister and you watch as your son kills her as she cries.

Do you have that son? Because, hey, it won’t be your fault if you do. You’ll teach him to make his own mind up about things and if he chooses to do evil, then who can blame you!

Just a hypothetical on free will and God’s involvement in the evils of this world.

It’s a useless hypothetical, in that we as human beings are not given omniscience of our own life, let alone that of our progeny.

Let’s drop the Bryant thing already and get back to the justice of Hell.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

It’s a useless hypothetical, in that we as human beings are not given omniscience of our own life, let alone that of our progeny.

Let’s drop the Bryant thing already and get back to the justice of Hell.

It came up in context. In fact, it’s quite pertinent. Do you have a son knowing that he will go to hell. Obviously we don’t have omniscience - but that’s what hypotheticals are about. There doesn’t have to be a fat man and a trolley for those type of questions to work.

But I will admit the question is loaded and personally, I can’t see a way to answer it myself without involving some degree of culpability. The fact that is hasn’t been answered appears to confirm this.

 

[oldcelt]

It came up in context. In fact, it’s quite pertinent. Do you have a son knowing that he will go to hell. Obviously we don’t have omniscience - but that’s what hypotheticals are about. There doesn’t have to be a fat man and a trolley for those type of questions to work.

But I will admit the question is loaded and personally, I can’t see a way to answer it myself without involving some degree of culpability. The fact that is hasn’t been answered appears to confirm this.

What I have argued many times. One cannot create with infallible foreknow;ledge and escape all responsibility. Add in the preordination of all future events and we all know what we have…no free will.

 

[antunesaa]

tonrey,

I believe that your thinking on this subject is influenced by a false dichotomy. I know this due to our discussion on my thread which was censored. You seem to believe that it is just for sinners to be tormented in an eternal hell, since the only other option is to “get off scot-free.” Couldn’t there be a middle way? Couldn’t God satisfy his justice by tormenting sinners for a period of time? Isn’t a million years of torture enough? A billion? Why does it have to be endless to be just?

Actually you can have a negative payoff forever and still suffer a finite negative payoff as long as you discount the future. A sufficient condition for this would be a preference to postpone suffering, which is true for humans in general. In that case many years, say, 100 years would be almost the same as 1 billion.