The Problem of Hell

[alien2earth]

@ NAZZUL:

Where is our measure of what is sadistic to begin with? Who says what is good and bad and how do we measure it? I know Christians measure good and bad by the Bible and the holiness that God possesses Himself and requires of everyone. Of course, Christians also believe no one is able to achieve this holiness and all are guilty of not being holy enough to enter Heaven and be in the presence of God. This is why Jesus had to be a sacrifice for our sins and this is why the gospel (or "good news") is preached.
I'm very confused why people think they deserve anything, whether good or bad.

 

[ulu]

@JGL53:
If the reason the sun rises and cows fart is because the show is about humans then this is a problem. But if the universe is here because of God, if we are merely creatures made to worship Him (albeit His favorite creatures), then the perspective of hell changes.

The truth hurts.

 

[JGL53]

You want truth?

"Hell is other people."

- from Sarte's play "No Exit".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit

 

[Eudaimonist]

You want truth?

"Hell is other people."

- from Sarte's play "No Exit".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Exit

You want more truth?

Heaven is other people too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGL53]

You want more truth?

Heaven is other people too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Exactly. It's all about us humans - and, apparently, the various imaginary entities we create in our heads.

 

[Echetus]

1. Revelation 2:11
   He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.
   Revelation 2:10-12 (in Context) Revelation 2 (Whole Chapter)
2. Revelation 20:6
   Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
   Revelation 20:5-7 (in Context) Revelation 20 (Whole Chapter)
3. Revelation 20:14
   Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
   Revelation 20:13-15 (in Context) Revelation 20 (Whole Chapter)
4. Revelation 21:8
   But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

The bible speaks of hell as "everlasting punishment". Jesus speaks of hell in parables, such as "what good is a tree that does not bear fruit, it has no purpose but to be thrown into fire" So my interpretation is that when you are thrown into fire, you will die, it will be second death, as said in revelations. Further more, being killed is a punishment that is everlasting.

 

[tcampen]

Regardless of what any bible says, or how any person interprets the bible, the notion of eternal punishment of anykind for a finite transgression is irrational.

If God is infinite, than any finite, human transgression against such a god would be so inconceivably small in comparison. The contrary assertion that small, finite transgressions against an infinite god elevate the transgression to infinite status is utterly illogical, and self-contradictory. It's just spewing nonsense.

Futhermore, if the same god is defined by such qualities as love, mercy and reason, eternal punishment of any sort would be contrary to these very qualities by definition. We have a word for people who refuse to let go of relatively small transgressions against them - it's called a grudge. And a grudge can never be a virtue, regardless if we're talking about humans or gods.

 

[JGL53]

Regardless of what any bible says, or how any person interprets the bible, the notion of eternal punishment of anykind for a finite transgression is irrational.

If God is infinite, than any finite, human transgression against such a god would be so inconceivably small in comparison. The contrary assertion that small, finite transgressions against an infinite god elevate the transgression to infinite status is utterly illogical, and self-contradictory. It's just spewing nonsense.

Futhermore, if the same god is defined by such qualities as love, mercy and reason, eternal punishment of any sort would be contrary to these very qualities by definition. We have a word for people who refuse to let go of relatively small transgressions against them - it's called a grudge. And a grudge can never be a virtue, regardless if we're talking about humans or gods.

So, in a nutshell, the idea of hell is just dumb.

Would that be a fair statement?

 

[tcampen]

So, in a nutshell, the idea of hell is just dumb.

Would that be a fair statement?

Pretty much.

 

[JonF]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?


Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill Humans apparently can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet hell is an infinite punishment. In this vein, Jorge Luis Borges suggests in his essay La duración del Infierno that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

If i were to rob a billionaire of $10, and i were to rob a poor starving widow who adopts orphins of her last $10, would the transgression differ in magnitude?

 

[JonF]

So who you commit the transgression against, is a factor in the magnitude of the transgession?

Then why is that a transgression against an infinite loving, righteous, good, being would be finite in magnituted?

 

[Mr.Luigi]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?


Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed

Non repented sin against against an immaculate God is a monstrous crime whose punishment is eternal because the injury is eternal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Non repented sin against against an immaculate God is a monstrous crime whose punishment is eternal because the injury is eternal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

God can be injured?

And any God who would omnisciently create a species leading to millions of cases of infinite punishments is far from "immaculate". Hitler looks like a boyscout compared to such a God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGL53]

So who you commit the transgression against, is a factor in the magnitude of the transgession?...

Obviously. Also who you are and your situation would factor into the question, in terms of subjective transgression of one human against another.

Then why is that a transgression against an infinite loving, righteous, good, being would be finite in magnituted?...

I see your problem. You are looking at the question backwards. Actually, the magnitude of the transgression would depend upon the situation of the transgressor, not the transgresse.

Under your antilogic form of "thinking", a infinite god creates a finite being, then requires infinite punishment for a finite transgression. Since the very existence of the finite entity who transgresses is due totally to the act of the infinite being, AND the situation, including all the powers or abilities of the finite being is solely due to the decision of the infinite being, infinite punishment is certainly not call for in the sense of some ultimate required justice regarding the infinite being. Such a punishment would be arbitrary and capricious.

This is exactly why hell is a stupid and ridiculous idea that you cannot persuade a disinterested person to accept.

Hell is stupid. Accept the obvious.

 

[JGL53]

Non repented sin against against an immaculate God is a monstrous crime whose punishment is eternal because the injury is eternal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

It's stupid. There is nothing to understand.

It's like a priest who preforms the sacriments at mass in the morning and molests an altar boy in the afternoon. There is a logical contradiction there that can't be reconciled by some wave of the hand and a quote from the bible.

Hell is a stupid idea. Accept the obvious and quit beating a dead horse.

 

[JonF]

I see your problem. You are looking at the question backwards. Actually, the magnitude of the transgression would depend upon the situation of the transgressor, not the transgresse.

Why? You just agreed previously that the transgresee is factored into magnitutde, now you are saying it's not. Please justify this execption.

Under your antilogic

latent language doesn't make you any more correct.

form of "thinking", a infinite god creates a finite being, then requires infinite punishment for a finite transgression.

We are discussing if this transgression is finite, please mid argument do not try and suppose it is without addressing my argument.

Since the very existence of the finite entity who transgresses is due totally to the act of the infinite being, AND the situation, including all the powers or abilities of the finite being is solely due to the decision of the infinite being, infinite punishment is certainly not call for in the sense of some ultimate required justice regarding the infinite being. Such a punishment would be arbitrary and capricious.

What exactly do you mean be "due totally to the act". Are you arguing belief in God necessitates fatalism? That's the only way i know how to make sense of that statment.

This is exactly why hell is a stupid and ridiculous idea that you cannot persuade a disinterested person to accept.

Hell is stupid. Accept the obvious.

See my previous comment about latent language.

 

[JGL53]

Are you arguing belief in God necessitates fatalism?...

Since we are arguing about the unproved and thus assumed nonexistent until proven, let me just address one question you pose in order to keep the insanity we are producing together in a narrow as grove as possible.

IF there is an omnipotent creator entity (for short the OCE) who created us and our universe then, yes, logically there would be fatalism, regarding any created finite being. I.e., an OCE cannot create other OCEs. If so, then forget any logic.

The OCE is ultimately responsible for anything that results from the OCE's act of creation and thus IS responsible for all that occurs within the creation -totally. Otherwise the OCE is just dissembling pretending that his or her or its created finite beings can trump his or her or its will in the fullness of time or within eternity. IF any one of them could, then the OCE would not be the OCE.

And, oh, yeah, did I mention the obvious? Hell is a stupid idea.

 

[JonF]

Why? You just agreed previously that the transgresee is factored into magnitutde, now you are saying it's not. Please justify this execption

Please address this.

IF there is an omnipotent creator entity (for short the OCE) who created us and our universe then, yes, logically there would be fatalism, regarding any created finite being. I.e., an OCE cannot create other OCEs. If so, then forget any logic.

You do know the difference between fatalism, and casual determism right?

The OCE is ultimately responsible for anything that results from the OCE's act of creation

What do you mean by responsible here?

and thus IS responsible for all that occurs within the creation -totally. Otherwise the OCE is just dissembling pretending that his or her or its created finite beings can trump his or her or its will in the fullness of time or within eternity.

I disagree with this, justify it please. Can you choose not to exercise your will? Which definition of will are you using? Active desires, or the agraget sum of inclination

And, oh, yeah, did I mention the obvious? Hell is a stupid idea.

latent language doesn't make you any more correct.

 

[JGL53]

We disagree, apparently, on the definitions of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

I say that, with the existence of a being that has the above attributes, all other questions of alleged importance are obviated.

You disagree.

Well, I can explain it over and over to you, apparently, but I will never be able to understand it for you.

Sweet dreams, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

 

[JonF]

We disagree, apparently, on the definitions of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

I say that, with the existence of a being that has the above attributes, all other questions of alleged importance are obviated.

You disagree.

Well, I can explain it over and over to you, apparently, but I will never be able to understand it for you.

Sweet dreams, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

You never once answered any of my questions, or addressed a single argument.

The statement you made here is a cop out. We were arguing what it would mean for a being to have these properties. Instead of addressing my points you claim “I will never be able to understand [the omni’s]”. Why don’t you actually try to argue something rather than what you have been doing?

I mean really, look at our conversation so far, you’ve: sorta cited something similar to what Hume argues when you imply in the next post that you yourself disagree with him, you fail to address why God would be the only exception to a general principle you agreed on (I asked you about this twice so far), equivocated, treated casual determinism and fatalism as the same thing (I asked you about this too yet no reply), all the while relying on words you think make you look more intelligent than everyone around you and rhetoric you hope no one can follow. Oh yeah, and repeating that “the idea of hell is stupid” over and over with no justification. I honestly don’t think I am the person who is failing to “understand”.

I have no problem discussing these topics with you, but if we are going to do so, please try to actually discuss them.