The Problem of Hell

[The Penitent Man]

http://thejourneyback.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/internet_fist_bump.png?w=450&h=342

 

[Skavau]

I believe that some human actions are fundamentally and absolutely wrong. To me this means that when these actions are committed they will always be deemed morally wrong regardless of context.

Okay.

I find such acts like rape and murder always wrong without exception on every occasion every time . This is why I subscribe to absolute morality.

If I held to relative morality, acts like rape and murder regardless if I believe they ought to be wrong cannot be stated to be always wrong. This is because something that is always wrong, is absolutely wrong - which defies relativism.

And what purpose does such steadfast confidence produce? 'Absolute morality' fails on the basis that it is incoherent and inept, how can a behavioural decision, or a specific behavioural tendency have objective qualities.

Under such a subjective system, one would have to admit that there must be some context (currently existent or not) that determines rape and murder to be good actions.

No. It would be a concession that the universe and generally all affairs outside of human co-existence have no qualms nor interest in our behavioural standards. I contend that essentially all successful societies ever, from a pragmatic point of view - must come to the conclusion that murder, rape and theft are self-defeating to survival, and thus inpractical for a fledgling tribe, community, group of people. As we of course, expand and gain new understanding, morality evolves from there. But these are almost ground rules that are necessary for all else to follow.

That of course is not why I view murder and rape - but it is why there really cannot be a situation where they are right.

Why do you keep making definitive statements like this? Do you really believe that impeding on the rights of others is always wrong? That's an absolute position.

Do you even know what definitive is? When I say I like the band Shadow Gallery is that a meaningless statement? Does that mean I might not like them at some other time, or does it mean I always absolutely like them and consider them objectively good?

And yes, we have now moved beyond pure survival objectives in first-world nations. Respecting the integrity of the individual has its foundation in all sorts of ideologies and is in all of interests to understand it.

If this is true, then you can't tell me that I don't have the ability to determine what is right and wrong based solely on my own personal beliefs. If I want to believe that it is morally good to rape women, then to me it becomes morally good.

You'd be ignoring what morality really means. But in any case, there are people that believe that - and to those that do, that is why we have civil law.

Sure my community may punish me but that's not to say my act was morally wrong within my own moral system. Within relativism I should be allowed to define "good" and "wrong" anyway I choose - even if it disagrees with the majority. My definitions can't be said to be absolutely wrong either.

No you wouldn't. This is the complete nonsense claim of the absolute crowd - that somehow, in the absence of a 'universal lawgiver' (that you concede you cannot demonstrate to have any merit) morality becomes anything. It does not. You have given no reason to believe this. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that without the existence of a language lawgiver, definitions can mean anything and I can define anything as I choose.

Morality can loosely, very loosely be vaguely defined as what ought to be done in the context of a community. It is not and cannot be complete disregard for a community and only self-interest. That is not morality.

I can't prove that morality is absolute and you can't prove morality is relative. But that's not my goal. I'm not trying to disprove your position. I'm merely pointing out the implications. Implications that render actions like rape and murder as not always wrong.

The fact that 'rape' and 'murder' could be said by some to be acceptable is true if I accept absolute morality or not. What matters is that I reject them. And it matters that we have come to the setup that most people tend to reject them.

Have you heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma, sir? Which is your conclusion on it?

What about in a uncivilized society?

They're uncivilized. If they endorse rape, they will eventually initiate their own undoing.

Thanks for showing that our argument goes both ways.

And what of the billions that could not convert? You know: Those that have to honestly accept Christianity and the concepts contained within. Millions of Atheists, hindus, Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, etc have not converted to Christianity - and from their own perspective, for wholly pragmatic and logical reasons.

You're using the principal of Occam's Razor here? Abiogenesis would be incredibly complex. Even the simplest possible life form would need several thousand parts come together perfectly from mere chance. How can you say that this is the simpler than saying a Creator created?

You consider God less complex than abiogenesis? Life from non-life might have happened. Life from God might have happened. In the latter we have to assume an unevidenced claim to be true (God). That is why the razor is so relevant here.

Not being able to leave a 5 by 7 room for more than a few hours a day IS torture.

Never said anything about solitary confinement, or poor prison conditions. At any rate, it is no deliberate attempt to cause physical ordeal.

Waiting to be executed is a torturous ordeal too. Think of the mental anguish and the physical toll from stress.

But it is not (and neither is the above) - the objective. The objective is to merely seperate them from society for societies protection. There is no talk of gratitious torture, or physical violence enacted upon them - and indeed, certainly not for as long as possible.

 

[Gracchus]

Why would anyone choose not to be in heaven?

Because it would mean having to endure the company of self-righteous hypocrites?

The only alternative I can imagine would be to exist as an earthbound spirit, like Beetlejuice or Casper.

Your imagination is somewhat lacking.

Annihilation doesn't seem that good to me.

Consider some of the alternatives.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Is it really better to reign in hell than serve in heaven?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it really better to reign in hell than serve in heaven?

If the Bible is any indication of whom we would have to serve, yea, I think it is.

 

[The Penitent Man]

I knew you'd say that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I knew you'd say that.

Awesome. Do you know the winning lottery numbers?

 

[The Penitent Man]

No.

 

[Jig]

'Absolute morality' fails on the basis that it is incoherent and inept, how can a behavioural decision, or a specific behavioural tendency have objective qualities.

Absolute morality is only inept or incoherent within your philosophical world-view. For me it is not inept because it would be very appropriate with the existence of an absolute being (like the Christian God). It also is not incoherent because it harmonizes with the existence of an absolute being (like the Christian God).

Sure you don't believe in the existence of such a Being, but since you can not objectively dismiss such a Beings existence. Your statement about absolute morality cannot be definitive. (I used that word just for you )

Relative morality on the other hand can not be fully compatible with the notion of absolute truth. Since truth cannot be relative, I wouldn't bet all my cookies on the horse your hoping to finish first.

No. It would be a concession that the universe and generally all affairs outside of human co-existence have no qualms nor interest in our behavioural standards. I contend that essentially all successful societies ever, from a pragmatic point of view - must come to the conclusion that murder, rape and theft are self-defeating to survival, and thus inpractical for a fledgling tribe, community, group of people. As we of course, expand and gain new understanding, morality evolves from there. But these are almost ground rules that are necessary for all else to follow.

This fits well within your philosophical position, but as for pragmatics, I have something to add. The Bible tells us that sex before marriage is morally wrong. However, the act of premarital sexual union within our world communities is quickly evolving towards general acceptance. I contend that this actual goes against so-called natural tendencies for survival and is forming countless negative problems within such communities.

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone stopped committing premarital sex and followed the pattern for sex found within the Bible (which is staying a virgin until marriage and staying continually monogamous), the prevalence of sexual transmitted diseases would be nil. Millions of people are dying every year because of the failure to follow this Biblical moral code.

That of course is not why I view murder and rape - but it is why there really cannot be a situation where they are right.

If there are absolutely no possible situations where an action can be regraded as right, does this make it absolutely wrong?

You'd be ignoring what morality really means. But in any case, there are people that believe that - and to those that do, that is why we have civil law.

I'm not ignoring what morality really means. You are. Your position lacks objective definitions for the terms "good" and "wrong". The definition of morality is dependent on the definitions of these terms.

My position sets forth what is wrong or right in absolute terms, so I'm able to take morality and apply it non-subjectively.

No you wouldn't. This is the complete nonsense claim of the absolute crowd - that somehow, in the absence of a 'universal lawgiver' (that you concede you cannot demonstrate to have any merit) morality becomes anything. It does not. You have given no reason to believe this. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that without the existence of a language lawgiver, definitions can mean anything and I can define anything as I choose.

Really? For my example, can you give me a definition for the term "good" that exists independently of human conceptions? If not, than your definition for the term "good" can not be said to be objective.

Have you heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma, sir? Which is your conclusion on it?

I am vaguely familiar with it from my college classes I had on philosophy of religion. I, however, haven't spent a great deal of time addressing it. I will copy and paste a Christian response that I feel is correct.

The dilemma is false: yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that "good is an essential part of God's nature". So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good. Which is to say that God is good by definition — in a way he has no choice because it is simply in his nature to be that way. And he commands others to be good as well.

You consider God less complex than abiogenesis? Life from non-life might have happened. Life from God might have happened. In the latter we have to assume an unevidenced claim to be true (God). That is why the razor is so relevant here.

Abiogenesis is unevidenced too. It is theoretical. It has never been replicated in any scientific study.

But it is not (and neither is the above) - the objective. The objective is to merely seperate them from society for societies protection. There is no talk of gratitious torture, or physical violence enacted upon them - and indeed, certainly not for as long as possible.

Minimized torture still equals torture. And who decides what is gratuitous or not? Is there an objective line where torture ceases to be gratuitous or starts to be gratuitous?

 

[Skavau]

Absolute morality is only inept or incoherent within your philosophical world-view. For me it is not inept because it would be very appropriate with the existence of an absolute being (like the Christian God). It also is not incoherent because it harmonizes with the existence of an absolute being (like the Christian God).

The very concept is inept. It is like there being an objective favourite colour.

Sure you don't believe in the existence of such a Being, but since you can not objectively dismiss such a Beings existence. Your statement about absolute morality cannot be definitive. (I used that word just for you )

Right. So?

Relative morality on the other hand can not be fully compatible with the notion of absolute truth. Since truth cannot be relative, I wouldn't bet all my cookies on the horse your hoping to finish first.

Reality is objective. Morality is not. You are again conflating morality with reality.

This fits well within your philosophical position, but as for pragmatics, I have something to add. The Bible tells us that sex before marriage is morally wrong. However, the act of premarital sexual union within our world communities is quickly evolving towards general acceptance. I contend that this actual goes against so-called natural tendencies for survival and is forming countless negative problems within such communities.

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone stopped committing premarital sex and followed the pattern for sex found within the Bible (which is staying a virgin until marriage and staying continually monogamous), the prevalence of sexual transmitted diseases would be nil. Millions of people are dying every year because of the failure to follow this Biblical moral code.

The marriage part is not necessary. Just having one sexual partner would be just as safe.

If there are absolutely no possible situations where an action can be regraded as right, does this make it absolutely wrong?

No. Because 'absolute' has a loaded definition where it makes claims on behalf of existence. Morality is a human construct and cannot do that. Some people, as you have said could contend murder and rape to be right. Neither your theistic notion of morality, nor my contempt towards either murder or rape can stop them from doing that. All that can stop them is civil law which ought to legislate against it.

Really? For my example, can you give me a definition for the term "good" that exists independently of human conceptions? If not, than your definition for the term "good" can not be said to be objective.

Dude, I've already told you that 'good' is neither objective nor existent beyond humanity. Why do you keep asking loaded questions?

I am vaguely familiar with it from my college classes I had on philosophy of religion. I, however, haven't spent a great deal of time addressing it. I will copy and paste a Christian response that I feel is correct.

The dilemma is false: yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that "good is an essential part of God's nature". So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good. Which is to say that God is good by definition — in a way he has no choice because it is simply in his nature to be that way. And he commands others to be good as well.

So you believe morality to be circular. At any rate, you insist on having it both ways that God commands something to be good because it is good, and that it is good because God commands it. This is incoherent and flawed:

Premise 1: God commands what is good
Premise 2: Whatever God commands is good

1. God commands what is good and whatever god commands is good
2. Suppose God chooses to command X.
3. X is a bad command. This contradicts Premise 1 as God cannot command what is bad.
4. However, all commands are immediately declared as good by merit of God's own authority (Per Premise 3) and therefore X becomes good. This leads to two results:

4a. God can command X because God is all-powerful. This however refutes Premise 1 and whatever God commands is good only.
4b. God cannot command X because that would contradict Premise 1. This would refute the idea that God is all-powerful and also refute the idea that whatever God commands is good.
​

5. Therefore it is either false that whatever God commands is good or false that God commands what is good.

Abiogenesis is unevidenced too. It is theoretical. It has never been replicated in any scientific study.

There's far more information and understanding about it than inserted supernatural explanations.

Minimized torture still equals torture. And who decides what is gratuitous or not? Is there an objective line where torture ceases to be gratuitous or starts to be gratuitous?

Someone being locked in a room in confinement may be considered psychologically tortorous, but it is not its objective. Someone being on death row may also be psychologically tortorous, but it is not its objective. Gratuitous is to act deliberately and with more force than is necessary. Hell absolutely, by everything you've said cannot be anything less than such.

 

[Jig]

The very concept is inept. It is like there being an objective favourite colour.

It's as if you didn't follow my comment. It is only inept within YOUR philosophical world-view. It is perfectly appropriate within MY philosophical world-view.

Reality is objective. Morality is not. You are again conflating morality with reality.

Stating morality can not be objective is your subjective opinion.

The marriage part is not necessary. Just having one sexual partner would be just as safe.

You failed to address the concern. The majority of the world's communities now accept promiscuity. This evolutional conclusion is actually creating harm.

Morality is a human construct and cannot do that.

Again, this is merely your opinion.

Dude, I've already told you that 'good' is neither objective nor existent beyond humanity. Why do you keep asking loaded questions?

I prefer loaded baked potatoes. I'll take extra cheddar on mine!

You know what I'm going to say...philosophical assumption.

So you believe morality to be circular. At any rate, you insist on having it both ways that God commands something to be good because it is good, and that it is good because God commands it. This is incoherent and flawed:

Premise 1: God commands what is good
Premise 2: Whatever God commands is good

1. God commands what is good and whatever god commands is good
2. Suppose God chooses to command X.
3. X is a bad command. This contradicts Premise 1 as God cannot command what is bad.
4. However, all commands are immediately declared as good by merit of God's own authority (Per Premise 3) and therefore X becomes good. This leads to two results:

4a. God can command X because God is all-powerful. This however refutes Premise 1 and whatever God commands is good only.
4b. God cannot command X because that would contradict Premise 1. This would refute the idea that God is all-powerful and also refute the idea that whatever God commands is good.
​

5. Therefore it is either false that whatever God commands is good or false that God commands what is good.

The dilemma is false. Premise two is not needed.

There's far more information and understanding about it than inserted supernatural explanations.

There is no information on actual abiogenesis that isn't as philosophically packed as the idea of creation. What about the law of biogenesis? There's far more information and understanding of this law law than abiogenesis. Don't get razor burned.

Someone being locked in a room in confinement may be considered psychologically tortorous, but it is not its objective. Someone being on death row may also be psychologically tortorous, but it is not its objective. Gratuitous is to act deliberately and with more force than is necessary. Hell absolutely, by everything you've said cannot be anything less than such.

This is only true if what Hell actually entails is not necessary. I say it is, you say it isn't. Maybe we should flip a coin. I call heads.

 

[Skavau]

It's as if you didn't follow my comment. It is only inept within YOUR philosophical world-view. It is perfectly appropriate within MY philosophical world-view.

I'm calling an inept concept across the board. Just like you might call atheism inept across the board.

Stating morality can not be objective is your subjective opinion.

Of course it is. Would you expect me to state something other than what I consider to be true?

You failed to address the concern. The majority of the world's communities now accept promiscuity. This evolutional conclusion is actually creating harm.

People's willful ignorance regarding unprotected sex and people's ignorance with STD's are causing harm to themselves and others.

Again, this is merely your opinion.

And the idea that morality is otherworldly in nature is just your opinion.

What's your point?

The dilemma is false. Premise two is not needed.

So you must therefore consider morality seperate from God.

There is no information on actual abiogenesis that isn't as philosophically packed as the idea of creation. What about the law of biogenesis? There's far more information and understanding of this law law than abiogenesis. Don't get razor burned.

The idea of creation. Can you expand upon it without merely referencing supernatural claims and God of the Gaps?

This is only true if what Hell actually entails is not necessary. I say it is, you say it isn't. Maybe we should flip a coin. I call heads.

You have frequently claimed it is necessary throughout this discussion without ever at one point elaborating on how.

 

[Jig]

Of course it is. Would you expect me to state something other than what I consider to be true?

As long as you agree that what you believe to be true may actually be incorrect. This goes for both of us. This is what I'm pointing out. I've been answering your questions not to convince you my position is correct - no one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the debate. I am just trying to let you know why I believe what I believe.

The title of this thread is misleading. The problem isn't with Hell, the problem lays in ones own understanding of Hell. I don't see a problem with Hell. You do.

 

[griggs1947]

The problem of Hell, that hellish doctrine adds to the problem of evil! And it underscores the evil that both the Tanakh and the Testament record of its Yahweh! Whether the Deluge or the commands for genocide or the sending to Hell reveal an immoral God. Then again, no just God would allow evil or at least not the pointless evil that surrounds us as the thread the problem of Heaven so well depicts.
Some aver that the punishment perforce has to be disproportionate as it reflects upon God's majesty! No, no punishment should have anything to do with such but only with the crime itself.
Now most naturalists do follow an objective morality: like science it is inter-subjective, discerned by all, except sociopaths and such. The objectivity involved is that we all can see that murder is wrong. Now, yes, that can be hard. For instance, it took millennia for many people to realize that slavery harms all. Nonetheless, earlier people could have discern that had they refined their evolved moral sense-empathy- to include all humanity.
Supernatural morality reflects only what mere men with their simple subjectivism of whims and tastes would have us to believe.
See the new thread covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism.

 

[griggs1947]

To maintain that after all, Heaven will make up for the evils,does not address those in any kind of Hell, and paints God as sadistic after all just as I would be were I to say let me break your limbs to get a million dollars!
Why not then Heaven in the first place with free will and a guarantee not to do wrong? Or as with Lucifer, would people yet have a free will to do wrong?
And as we have determined volition instead of free will, why not better determinants?
Unbelief should not cause any to go to Hell, and Hell shoud not exist anyway!
Ti's immoral to have people to have a relationship with Him anyway!
Morally, what counts is the good for sentient beings.

 

[Timothew]

One problem I've always had with hell is, if I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God.. doesn't that turn Heaven into Hell for my Mom/Dad?

I think it would. I can't imagine the horror it would be, I don't even want to speak it, if God sent my son to a place of eternal torture that God designed and then said "come on up here and watch this". The whole idea of eternal torture in hell designed by a loving God is illogical at best. Ludicrous is a better term.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's weird, because if God existed; I would be sent to hell, but hypothetically; Stalin or Hitler could have believed in what Jesus did for them and still go to heaven.

Hitler did believe in Jesus... so hypothetically, as long as he confessed his sins he's up in Heaven right now too.

However, I haven't hurt anyone in my life... But I'd be bound for eternal torment because I think Jesus is nothing more than a mythological figure.

Great moral system, eh?

 

[Timothew]

Hitler did believe in Jesus... so hypothetically, as long as he confessed his sins he's up in Heaven right now too.

However, I haven't hurt anyone in my life... But I'd be bound for eternal torment because I think Jesus is nothing more than a mythological figure.

Great moral system, eh?

There are a growing number of Christians who have rejected the idea of hell because we think it is illogical and unbiblical. We still believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, we believe that he will resurrect us from death when he returns and he will give us eternal life. In fact, I believe every word of the Nicene Creed, which incidentally, doesn't say one word about hell.

 

[Eudaimonist]

...the Nicene Creed [...] doesn't say one word about hell.

This never occurred to me before. :o


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[griggs1947]

Why would God, supposedly lacking needs, worry over people not caring for a relationship with Him? That want bespeaks narcissism!
We owe no other being any relationship! This goes to the theistic jugular! Might doesn't make right.