What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Gottservant]

I would really like it if you could steer this back to Hell AND Philosophy as just discussing Hell is not helping me, or the people I am choosing to accept a possibility of weakness in the context of Hell for (via Philosophy).

You have to understand that this is not about right and wrong. Heaven is silent, Hell is torment. If there is anything that gives hope it is why you experience one or the other, AND HOW. Greater hope, anyway.

Just being right, is not an experience.

 

[Skavau]

Gottservant, if hell is as atrocious as described by many then no-one there despite any insistence otherwise will be able to put up with it. After all it was designed to be that way.

Not sure what you want other than that.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

This is an unwarranted assertion. Why does every bad thing that we do deserve eternal punishment?

When you murder someone you deserve life in prison and the death penalty correct?

Yes, but they do not deserve eternal torment. They are also imprisoned on the basis that their actions directed harmed another and on the risk that keeping them free would cause.

Torture in hell?

Pascal's Wager if accepted directly encourages people to be dishonest and believe on reasons of self-interest.

Yep, just like "atheism".

At any rate the Wager is not true. It includes only two possibilities. You yourself are 'gambling' by electing Christianity over Islam.

"islam" claims Judas and not Jesus Christ was crucified, therefore "islam" is automatically false

From where I'm sitting Christians (and Muslims) use hell to warn (read: frighten and emotionally manipulate) people into converting.

Emotionally frighten and manipulate? why? obviously that wouldn't be the case if you didn't believe.

So would you not agree, that since hell is so unpopular that it would be rather effective to present a solution that not only removes the threat of hell but offers its polar opposite as a reward. When looked at in that context it becomes an extremely useful method for intimidating people into converting and stultifying dissent.

Also the argument wasn't from Christians who were already believers, but about The Apostles, no one would make up Hell as it goes against what pleases us. therefore no one made up Hell and Hell exists. you being threatened by those preaching Hell has nothing to do with it.

But you are mentioning it. You're mentioning it as the consequence of not believing in Christianity.

Of course, because those are the consequences.

That's the point. It is used as a threat by passive aggressive evangelicals towards people who won't believe.

Just people some use it as a threat means nothing, some folks don't mention Hell at all, so according to your logic it would be both a threat and not a threat.

Those who use Hell as a warning are just telling The Truth for the persons Benefit.

Also, a threat? looks like your threatened, why would you be if you didn't believe? I know I don't threaten but I warn "un-believers" of it so that they don't go there.


This is simply untrue. Evangelicals do it all the time. You do it yourself.

I threatened you? where, I don't appeate the slander, as I don't "threaten" anyone with Hell, but warn them for their own good, you being threatened by simple warnings due to compassion further proves, to me, that you believe it exists, otherwise there would be no fear.

Are you saying that because people don't have a reason to use hell as a tool for indoctrination that it is real?

Yep, perfectly valid argument that if all premises are true make the existence of Hell True.


At this point Zeus might exist for all the fun your logic has.


This is just assertions said in a seemingly random order. Your argumentation is also demonstrably circular: Hell exists therefore God exists therefore hell exists.

Nope, the argument is, Hell serves no ones gain as no human likes what Hell is, therefore Criteria of Dissimilarity proves Hell exists, therefore God exists.

Pascal's Wager is not only unnecessary it is also complete nonsense.

Nope, only unnecessary to those who make it that way and want to stay in their sins, as they put their wager on "atheism" which under Pascals Wager is a wrong risky choice.

However since God exists and Everything in The Bible Confirmed, you're right, Pascals Wager is unnecessary, you have no excuse.

Also, no-one is giving "excuses". We do not answer to you, nor a God that we don't believe in.

Why? more excuses?

We give reasons at our will and time regardless of whether or not you approve.

I don't have to approve, you just have to prove, and you can't give any evidence for "atheism", not 1 rebuttal, and just excuses.

Not reasons but excuses, reasons would be refuting what I say, not refusing to answer, that is off putting and cowardice.

... in your opinion.

Prove it.

No, use Pascal's wager on yourself first. Maybe you'll take a liking to one of those eastern religions.

Too late, I already know The Bible is True and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) exists, so it can't apply to me.

 

[Skavau]

When you murder someone you deserve life in prison and the death penalty correct?

A few things here.

1) Even if I was to grant that someone deserves life imprisonment for murder (which I would say not if rehabilitation is possible) it would not be comparable to "eternal punishment" for anything. For one, we do not torture people in prison. For seconds, we do eventually die. Not remotely comparable,

2) The death penalty ends someone's life. If they are dead they are not being punished by the state for their crime.

So really not sure what you're going for here.

Torture in hell?

So not clicking on that link. If you have a point regarding torture in hell and why you think we deserve it or on how I'm misrepresenting then go on and make it but I am not arguing with a website.

Yep, just like "atheism".

Atheism does not encourage people to be anything. It is a descriptive term as benign and as useful a method for identifying someone's entire identity as "Golfer" or "Liberal" (though I guess "Liberal" is marginally more useful than the former).

Also, you are the one encouraging people to sacrifice their principles by using the Wager. You are the one suggesting people be dishonest and just pretend to be a Christian in order to avoid punishment.

"islam" claims Judas and not Jesus Christ was crucified, therefore "islam" is automatically false

So if you can identify by a process of elimination a series of options that are untrue then so can I. I (and other) have eliminated the prospect of Christianity and therefore the prospect of hell (which is predicated on Christianity). The wager is by your own words, useless.

Emotionally frighten and manipulate? why? obviously that wouldn't be the case if you didn't believe.

They use hell to emotionally manipulate people into becoming a Christian. They use things like "Pascal's Wager" to suggest that being an atheist is dangerous.

It doesn't affect me, but it does affect children and the emotionally weak and uneducated.

Also the argument wasn't from Christians who were already believers, but about The Apostles, no one would make up Hell as it goes against what pleases us.

The argument isn't that Christians "make up" hell to scare non-Christians. The argument is that the emphasis on it is driven by a desire to convert non-Christians.

therefore no one made up Hell and Hell exists. you being threatened by those preaching Hell has nothing to do with it.

Someone, somewhere along the line made up "hell" (the concept of 'hell' transcends Christianity, by the way). You and all other evangelicals did not make it up but adhere to it.

Of course, because those are the consequences.

Precisely. So you're using it in an attempt to convert.

Just people some use it as a threat means nothing, some folks don't mention Hell at all, so according to your logic it would be both a threat and not a threat.

Some people don't, but many others do. Most of those others are by no coincidence fundamentalist and evangelicals.

Those who use Hell as a warning are just telling The Truth for the persons Benefit.

Yes, I know that is what they believe. Point is that it is used in an attempt to convert others.

Also, a threat? looks like your threatened, why would you be if you didn't believe? I know I don't threaten but I warn "un-believers" of it so that they don't go there.

A threat is still a threat if the person being targeted is not threatened.

Tl;dr: I'm not threatened.

I threatened you? where, I don't appeate the slander, as I don't "threaten" anyone with Hell, but warn them for their own good, you being threatened by simple warnings due to compassion further proves, to me, that you believe it exists, otherwise there would be no fear.

You keep bringing hell up in an attempt to frighten non-Christians into believing. It doesn't work, amusingly.

Yep, perfectly valid argument that if all premises are true make the existence of Hell True.

No it isn't. It is an awful abrogation of basic logic.

Just because people don't use something a specific way does not mean that it exists. That logic is complete nonsense. It does not follow. It can be used to demonstrate anything as real.

Nope, the argument is, Hell serves no ones gain as no human likes what Hell is, therefore Criteria of Dissimilarity proves Hell exists, therefore God exists.

That hell serves no-one's ends does not mean that it exists. A unpopular concept does not exist by virtue (no pun intended) of how disagreeable it is.

By invoking the "Criteria of Dissimilarity" (slightly incorrectly I might add) you are suggesting that the entire concept is absurd. Which I agree, it is.

Nope, only unnecessary to those who make it that way and want to stay in their sins, as they put their wager on "atheism" which under Pascals Wager is a wrong risky choice.

I don't "put my wager" on anything. I don't believe in a God. I am correctly identifiable as an atheist by consequence of lacking belief in a God. It is not a matter of placing bets or gambling nor is it even a matter of choice. Belief is conviction, not mere whimsy.

However since God exists and Everything in The Bible Confirmed, you're right, Pascals Wager is unnecessary, you have no excuse.

I don't answer to you. Stop calling it "excuse". See above.

Why? more excuses?

I don't answer to you because I don't know you. I don't have to explain anything to you. Why should I answer to you?

As for God, I don't believe in him. It would be bizarre of me to think that I answer to a God that I don't think exists.

I don't have to approve, you just have to prove, and you can't give any evidence for "atheism", not 1 rebuttal, and just excuses.

You'll notice that this thread has little to do with whether God exists and is about hell.

Not reasons but excuses, reasons would be refuting what I say, not refusing to answer, that is off putting and cowardice.

No, the word 'excuse' implies the person is guilty and is saving face in a desperation to avoid responsibility. It has a loaded implication and you know it.

 

[quatona]

Hi there!

This might seem facetious or something, I am not trying to be simply smart. Actually a few perspectives, a bit of debate would help. What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell?

I can rattle of a number of glib ideas for Hell, but what I am looking for is a sense of "this will get me by, in Hell" or "this will sooth the pain of suffering, in Hell" or "that guy X made sense, but in Hell, I will tell him X Y" Do you see where I am going with this? What will make... what philosophy will make Hell more livable for you, if and for whatever reason you go there?

There is a clear choice, for those that cannot live with themselves, to destroy their body. They will readily accept that there bodies appeared over a long period of time, even eons, and that they gradually became more and more capable, with each new thing they learned, but how many accept that their bodies must go somewhere, over an equally long amount of time, if they decide that they don't want them any more. That they must be destroyed, just as they decided they wanted their bodies, after an enormous amount of time, so they must decide they don't want their bodies...

Have you got a philosophy ready for Hell? Just for Hell? Because if that's where you end up... you will need one, right? Atheism it? You think if you jus scratch the Name of God with something, that will pass the time? Can you survive long in Hell, with all the torment and suffering and pain, knowing that just scratching the Name of God, whether in the name of it (Atheism) or something else will get you by?

Seriously?

!

You might want to discuss philosophies that you think will be in Hell in this thread, I don't know...

I´m positive that once I will be there I´ll manage to make up a philosophy as I move along.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What's your philosophy for Hell?

Hell is a revenge fantasy. It arose from the desire to see the evil punished in the afterlife by divine forces (such as in the Greek Tartarus), and was later co-opted by Christians for their own purposes.

Hell may additionally be a symbol for guilt, perhaps including the fear of eventual justice for one's misdeeds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

(the concept of 'hell' transcends Christianity, by the way).

Congratulations! This is the first post that says something along the lines of what I was imagining. I am considering putting it in the OP. In fact, consider it done!

The comment that you can make it up as you go along, although care free, is in danger of looking inept, I think. Which "along" will you make it up along? You have to remember that it is important for the Philosophy to be impressive now before you get there, such that you only have to intimate what the Philosophy might be, for people in Hell to cringe in fear. Then at least you have a sporting chance of steeling yourself for more suffering, before any body else.

 

[quatona]

The comment that you can make it up as you go along, although care free, is in danger of looking inept, I think.

Well, it was made somewhat tongue in cheek, and I tried to adapt to the level of the OP.

Which "along" will you make it up along?

Along my presence in Hell.

You have to remember that it is important for the Philosophy to be impressive now before you get there, such that you only have to intimate what the Philosophy might be, for people in Hell to cringe in fear.

No. Since I don´t believe that Hell (in the afterlife torment version) exists, currently I am not in need of a philosophy of Hell that impresses me now.
I won´t need such until, to my surprise, I´ll find myself being there.

Then at least you have a sporting chance of steeling yourself for more suffering, before any body else.

You know, if I tried to make philosophical precautions for every metaphysical possibility that I don´t believe in I would be busy 24/7 without ever finishing the task.
Apart from the fact that no philosophy can help with steeling yourself against eternal suffering, anyway.

Apart from all the joking your posts provoke me to participate in:
As a person who finds great value in the the bible (and other mythological books) when read as a collection of metaphores that describe our inner processes by the artistic means of picturing them external to us or as intersubjective conflicts (IOW it´s possible to believe in the bible without believing there´s a God out there), I feel that that´s the best way of interpreting Hell, as well: The concept of Hell makes a lot of sense when understood as an inner state during our earthly existence.

 

[quatona]

I can rattle of a number of glib ideas for Hell, but what I am looking for is a sense of "this will get me by, in Hell" or "this will sooth the pain of suffering, in Hell" or "that guy X made sense, but in Hell, I will tell him X Y" Do you see where I am going with this? What will make... what philosophy will make Hell more livable for you, if and for whatever reason you go there?

Out of interest: What is your answer, for yourself?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Hell is a revenge fantasy.

Then prison is a revenge fantasy. you're a hypocrite, you say you "lack belief", now your the 2nd definition of an "atheist", which makes you a liar for claiming to "lack belief".

It arose from the desire to see the evil punished in the afterlife by divine forces (such as in the Greek Tartarus), and was later co-opted by Christians for their own purposes.

That's an assumption, where's your proof? 2, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exists and Christianity is The Objective Truth, therefore Hell exists, and people who go there send themselves there.

Hell may additionally be a symbol for guilt, perhaps including the fear of eventual justice for one's misdeeds.

Nope, but due to the fact that every sin causes eternal punishment.

Do you agree that a murderer deserves the death penalty/life in prison for their crime(s)?

As a person who finds great value in the the bible (and other mythological books)

Notice the assumption, get out of here with that bitterness, The Bible is True, Scientifically Accurate/Proven and Historic.

when read as a collection of metaphores that describe our inner processes by the artistic means of picturing them external to us or as intersubjective conflicts (IOW it´s possible to believe in the bible without believing there´s a God out there), I feel that that´s the best way of interpreting Hell, as well: The concept of Hell makes a lot of sense when understood as an inner state during our earthly existence.

Nope, Hell actually exists. questions about hell

 

[quatona]

Notice the assumption,

The thread starter asked me for my opinion, and I gave it.

get out of here with that bitterness,

Have you just bought CF, or something?
Where did you detect bitterness in my assumption? Projection much?

The Bible is True, Scientifically Accurate/Proven and Historic.

Ipse dixit.

Nope, Hell actually exists.

Yes, inside you.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

A few things here.

1) Even if I was to grant that someone deserves life imprisonment for murder (which I would say not if rehabilitation is possible) it would not be comparable to "eternal punishment" for anything. For one, we do not torture people in prison. For seconds, we do eventually die. Not remotely comparable,

2) The death penalty ends someone's life. If they are dead they are not being punished by the state for their crime.

So really not sure what you're going for here.

In other words a murderer deserves the death penalty or life imprisonment for their crimes.

Keep in mind, we are Eternal beings. therefore when we murder someone, we commit a serious crime, but it's Finitely punished. The killer ends one physical , but not their life. while when you lie, steal, rape, hurt, disobey, and murder, it's against God. so watch this, murder in this world is a finite crime against someone, so it's punished finitely. with God, yes murder is punished fintely in this world, but that's a sin against God, and your Spirit, which are eternal.

When you murder someone, it's wrong, and has to be punished, but only hurts the person finitely. when you rape or hurt someones feelings, you commit a crime against them eternally since their Spirit is eternal. so in that way, lying, stealing, hurt, and rape are worst then murder(never said murder isn't wrong, so no one put words in my mouth, murder should be punished justly, and is punished eternally for by God for disobeying and going against Him.)

So actually it would be wrong for God not to punish sin eternally. if you disagree with that then you disagree with the whole Justice system and Immprisionment. in other words if you disagree with that then you would agree the a murderer only needs 1 night in jail for their crimes, which is wrong.

So not clicking on that link. If you have a point regarding torture in hell and why you think we deserve it or on how I'm misrepresenting then go on and make it but I am not arguing with a website.

Why aren't you clicking the link? afraid I'll prove you wrong? you want to get more knowledge and Truth then click it, otherwise don't talk about Hell or tell us you look for Truth.

Atheism does not encourage people to be anything.

Yes it does, under "atheism"/"naturalism" rape wouldn't be wrong, which is false since rape is wrong. if you disagree you need to have God as the foundation for morality. so since rape is wrong, God must exist for that Moral Law, since that Moral Law is a Fact.

It is a descriptive term as benign and as useful a method for identifying someone's entire identity as "Golfer" or "Liberal" (though I guess "Liberal" is marginally more useful than the former).

Yep, "libertarianism" which promotes Sins/wrongs such as abortion and homosexual behavior.

Also, you are the one encouraging people to sacrifice their principles by using the Wager.

What principles? "atheism" has no principles.

So if you can identify by a process of elimination a series of options that are untrue then so can I. I (and other) have eliminated the prospect of Christianity and therefore the prospect of hell (which is predicated on Christianity). The wager is by your own words, useless.

No you can't, since Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead and "atheism" has no evidence, that means your only option according to Pascals Wager is The Lord Jesus Christ.

They use hell to emotionally manipulate people into becoming a Christian.

Notice the mindset, no one trying to manipulate, Me, and My Brothers and Sisters in Christ aren't out there to harm anyone, but convince for their own good. you really think we have anything to gain? I could easily sit back and rejoice that I'm going to Heaven and not care about anyone else, but that is wrong.

is it wrong to warn others about prison so that they don't commit crimes?

They use things like "Pascal's Wager" to suggest that being an atheist is dangerous.

That's because it is.

It doesn't affect me, but it does affect children and the emotionally weak and uneducated.

Physical Death affects children and emotionally weak(I remember the nights I used to cry when I was brainwashed into thinking life ended at the grave, glad to know Life never ends), does that mean it isn't real?

The argument isn't that Christians "make up" hell to scare non-Christians. The argument is that the emphasis on it is driven by a desire to convert non-Christians.

Of course! That's what we are to do. that's how I used Hell to show God exists, no one likes it so why would anyone make it up! no one would, people emphasise on it to warn others, but no one would make it up, thereby making Hell a Reality. therefore God exists and Christianity is The Truth.

You and all other evangelicals did not make it up but adhere to it.

Exactly, that's my argument. no one could have made it up, especially The Prophets or Apostles, which proves my point, Hell is Real.

Precisely. So you're using it in an attempt to convert.

Exactly, I know the consequences is Hell, I don't want others to send themselves there when I know it exists and how beautiful Heaven will be.

Some people don't, but many others do. Most of those others are by no coincidence fundamentalist and evangelicals.

Then according to you it's both a threat and not. no one's threatening anyone, we are Warning others of Hell, those who go to Hell threaten themselves.

Tl;dr: I'm not threatened.

Yes you are, you're bitterness towards what Hell is and any consideration of it actually existing proves that you are threatened and there's no reason to be because you can come to The Lord Jesus Christ, you only threaten yourself, no one does it but you.

You keep bringing hell up in an attempt to frighten non-Christians into believing. It doesn't work, amusingly.

Then that person it isn't working on was either 1, Very sensitive and didn't want to hear The Truth, or 2, The person they heard about Hell from wasn't warning them but belittling and threatening them, which would be the wrong way and has no relation to me, I warn others of Hell, not threaten.

That hell serves no-one's ends does not mean that it exists. A unpopular concept does not exist by virtue (no pun intended) of how disagreeable it is.

Yes it does, as no one would make it up, so that means it's Real.

By invoking the "Criteria of Dissimilarity" (slightly incorrectly I might add) you are suggesting that the entire concept is absurd. Which I agree, it is.

Nope, don't change my words, I agree that Hell is where all evil will be punished forever as it righteously deserves. I'm not it's absurd, I'm saying it Logically and Necessary exists.

I'm saying it's saying that No One Likes it, Criteria of Dissimilarity proves it Serves No One's Interest, not that it's absurd. it actually is Logical and Necessary as proven above.

I don't "put my wager" on anything.

On "atheism" you did.

I don't believe in a God.

you prove otherwise. with your attitude and All The Proof, Evidence, and Facts for God,

It is not a matter of placing bets or gambling nor is it even a matter of choice. Belief is conviction, not mere whimsy.

And The Proof, Evidence, and Facts make your "doubt" false.

I don't answer to you. Stop calling it "excuse". See above.

Excuses. who said you had to answer to me? you can do as you please, however not answering me proves you are full of excuses.

As for God, I don't believe in him. It would be bizarre of me to think that I answer to a God that I don't think exists.

So in your mind He's Impossible, that makes you a hypocrite as you claim you "lack belief" when you're actually the 2nd Definition(2B) of an "atheist".

So every time you come here claiming to "lack belief" I'll show this quote which makes you a liar.

No, the word 'excuse' implies the person is guilty and is saving face in a desperation to avoid responsibility. It has a loaded implication and you know it.

Exactly, if you weren't off putting, trying to save face, or avoid The Responsibility to look for Truth, then you would have just answered simple questions and looked at The Proof, Evidence, and Facts, not doing so shows you don't look for Truth.

 

[Skavau]

In other words a murderer deserves the death penalty or life imprisonment for their crimes.

Uh, not necessarily. I just explained that.

Indeed, even if I accepted that at all times it would not compare to eternal torment for any "bad act". We do not say, imprison people or execute people just for lying.

Keep in mind, we are Eternal beings. therefore when we murder someone, we commit a serious crime, but it's Finitely punished.

As it should only be. Eternal punishment is an incoherent concept at best and a downright morally objectionable concept at worst.

The killer ends one physical , but not their life. while when you lie, steal, rape, hurt, disobey, and murder, it's against God. so watch this, murder in this world is a finite crime against someone, so it's punished finitely. with God, yes murder is punished fintely in this world, but that's a sin against God, and your Spirit, which are eternal.

Why does a sin against God require eternal punishment?

When you murder someone, it's wrong, and has to be punished, but only hurts the person finitely. when you rape or hurt someones feelings, you commit a crime against them eternally since their Spirit is eternal.

Why does someone existing eternally in spirit mean an act against them means that you have committed a crime against them eternally? To put it in finite terms if I say, steal from you does that mean that I have committed a crime against you for the rest of your life?

Someone existing eternally =/= Crimes against them lasting for eternity

so in that way, lying, stealing, hurt, and rape are worst then murder(never said murder isn't wrong, so no one put words in my mouth, murder should be punished justly, and is punished eternally for by God for disobeying and going against Him.)

What a skewed moral compass

So actually it would be wrong for God not to punish sin eternally. if you disagree with that then you disagree with the whole Justice system and Immprisionment.

No, it would mean I disagree with the concept of eternal punishment for finite actions. Just because you describe acts of injustice against eternal beings as requiring an infinite response does not mean that it actually does.

in other words if you disagree with that then you would agree the a murderer only needs 1 night in jail for their crimes, which is wrong.

No, I would argue that a murderer needs as much time is required in jail and release only if they have been seen to have reformed (after a long period of time incarcerated). The reason for incarcerating criminals is to protect the public not for vengeance as hell seems to be for Christians.

We also, by the way do not incarcerate people for victimless crimes. Worth pointing out that you follow a system that would imprison people eternally for victimless 'crimes' (such as homosexual intercourse, blasphemy etc.)

Why aren't you clicking the link? afraid I'll prove you wrong?

As I said:

"If you have a point regarding torture in hell and why you think we deserve it or on how I'm misrepresenting then go on and make it but I am not arguing with a website."

you want to get more knowledge and Truth then click it, otherwise don't talk about Hell or tell us you look for Truth.

If you think anything from that website is specifically convincing then by all means, quote it and I'll respond. Otherwise I am not arguing with a website.

Yes it does, under "atheism"/"naturalism" rape wouldn't be wrong, which is false since rape is wrong.

No, it doesn't. Atheism tells me nothing on what one ought. It makes no mention on what we ought to do. Atheism is a descriptive term for people who do not hold a belief in God(s).

Also, you never did address my point about nations in the other thread. If secularism is so detrimental, so damaging to basic moral ideas then how come the best nations on the planet all tend to have the highest proportions of atheists?

Click the link, I dare you. If you do not I will accuse you of not wanting knowledge.

if you disagree you need to have God as the foundation for morality. so since rape is wrong, God must exist for that Moral Law, since that Moral Law is a Fact.

You have not made that argument. There is therefore no reason for me to believe that anyone needs God as a foundation for morality.

Yep, "libertarianism" which promotes Sins/wrongs such as abortion and homosexual behavior.

Actually, I said "Liberal" which is distinct from Libertarianism.

What principles? "atheism" has no principles.

No, it doesn't. But I and other atheists have principles. I dislike being told by sanctimonious theists that I should be dishonest and pretend to believe in God for self-gain.

No you can't, since Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead and "atheism" has no evidence, that means your only option according to Pascals Wager is The Lord Jesus Christ.

That's not how the wager works. The wager assumes all options could be true and attempts to work about what one ought to based on the negative consequences of each one. If it assumes the truth of any ideology be it Christianity, Islam, Hindusim or anything else then the wager becomes defunct.

Notice the mindset, no one trying to manipulate, Me, and My Brothers and Sisters in Christ aren't out there to harm anyone, but convince for their own good.

You can call it what you want. I will continue to label the attitude as emotional manipulation.

you really think we have anything to gain? I could easily sit back and rejoice that I'm going to Heaven and not care about anyone else, but that is wrong.

Would God punish you for such an attitude, out of interest?

is it wrong to warn others about prison so that they don't commit crimes?

No, but their basis for not committing crime should be rooted in understanding why committing crime is wrong and not for fear of punishment. That's not morality, that's fear.

That's because it is.

You believe that, I don't. Any God that would suggest it is and would punish me for it is a God not worthy of worship.

Physical Death affects children and emotionally weak(I remember the nights I used to cry when I was brainwashed into thinking life ended at the grave, glad to know Life never ends), does that mean it isn't real?

Physical death affects everyone. We know physical death is true because we observe it happening. We do not observe the existence of hell.

Of course! That's what we are to do. that's how I used Hell to show God exists, no one likes it so why would anyone make it up! no one would, people emphasise on it to warn others, but no one would make it up, thereby making Hell a Reality. therefore God exists and Christianity is The Truth.

What nonsense. By your logic Islam is true. No-one wants to go to the hell as outlined in Islam so therefore no-one would have made it up so therefore the hell in Islam exists and therefore Islam is true.

Exactly, that's my argument. no one could have made it up, especially The Prophets or Apostles, which proves my point, Hell is Real.

No, I still assert that hell was a human invention. Just no-one here invented the concept.

Yes you are, you're bitterness towards what Hell is and any consideration of it actually existing proves that you are threatened and there's no reason to be because you can come to The Lord Jesus Christ, you only threaten yourself, no one does it but you.

Again: I'm not threatened. This is all hypothetical to me. I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in Christianity. I am on a forum having a debate.

Also, it is worth pointing out that if hell is actually true then God is directly threatening non-believers with it. It is the price he imposes on everyone for not converting to Christianity. If that is not intimidation then I do not know what is.

Yes it does, as no one would make it up, so that means it's Real.

So by your logic Scientology is true because no-one would make up such nonsense so therefore it's real.

People through history have made up all kinds of ridiculous things. Just because something appears horrible does not mean that no-one could have made it up.

Nope, don't change my words, I agree that Hell is where all evil will be punished forever as it righteously deserves. I'm not it's absurd, I'm saying it Logically and Necessary exists.

You invoked the Criterion of Dissimilarity which suggests that a concept is so absurd that no-one could have made it up and thus it must be true. The entire line of reasoning is so hilarious to me. It basically argues that the more insane the more true.

I'm saying it's saying that No One Likes it, Criteria of Dissimilarity proves it Serves No One's Interest, not that it's absurd. it actually is Logical and Necessary as proven above.

You don't know, clearly, what the Criterion of Dissimilarity is.

On "atheism" you did.

No, I didn't.

you prove otherwise. with your attitude and All The Proof, Evidence, and Facts for God,

I am me. You are not. This means that I get sole power to determine what I do and do not believe. This means that by consequence get no say in what I do and do not believe. Stop telling me what I think, understand?

And The Proof, Evidence, and Facts make your "doubt" false.

I'm sure you believe this. At any rate it is entirely irrelevant. Belief is still not a choice and still a consequence of conviction.

Excuses. who said you had to answer to me? you can do as you please, however not answering me proves you are full of excuses.

I said I don't answer to you or God. You asked "Why?" I told you why.

So in your mind He's Impossible, that makes you a hypocrite as you claim you "lack belief" when you're actually the 2nd Definition(2B) of an "atheist".

I'm sorry, but you have a dire comprehension issue with the English language. I never said that God is "impossible". I said it would be "bizarre of me to think that I answer to a God that I don't think exists." There is no contradiction there. If I lack belief in a God(s) then by consequence I don't think that a God exists.

So every time you come here claiming to "lack belief" I'll show this quote which makes you a liar.

I am not responsible for your hideous representation of the English Language. Also, accuse me of lying again and I will involve the moderators. You keep claiming civility and then accuse people of lying to you in the other.

Exactly, if you weren't off putting, trying to save face, or avoid The Responsibility to look for Truth, then you would have just answered simple questions and looked at The Proof, Evidence, and Facts, not doing so shows you don't look for Truth.

I have answered your "simple questions". I will not be bull-baited by you or anyone to accept that my disbelief is insincere and some malignant excuse-making exercise. You do not get to make demands on anyone.

 

[Gottservant]

Apart from the fact that no philosophy can help with steeling yourself against eternal suffering, anyway.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there... facing the wrong way. This is exactly the point of contention between Hell in general, and Hell on Earth. Well done! Now we can debate it. If something prepares you for something else, how can you not say it has prepared you?

I feel that that´s the best way of interpreting Hell, as well: The concept of Hell makes a lot of sense when understood as an inner state during our earthly existence.

You are talking about Hellishness as if Hellishness is Hell. Well, it is Hell, but only when faced with a believer strong enough to put your Hellishness in its proper context!

 

[Gottservant]

Out of interest: What is your answer, for yourself?

My philosophy is that Hell being mine is worth talking about. I paid for it, with my blood (comes later) so it's mine. Ok, so its a work in progress, but I have a pretty effective plan for making it look popular, which I can't reveal, all at once. The point is essentially that, though: Hell is his.

You might say "you don't have the strength to pull it off", but actually all I have to do is point to Jesus Christ in a meaningful way - like you expect me to do it now - and you will change your mind! Thankyou Lord!

Not sure how long tormenting others like the Devil I throw out used to do will remain fun, but it seemed to last him for an Age or so.

 

[Gottservant]

Also it is starting to 4566 me that people are debating whether Hell exists or not in this thread... there are other threads or a lower Hell, where you can do that!

Seriously the forum is called "philosophy" full of "philosophy threads", one of which I started here as a "philosophical exercise"... pretty clear its about "philosophy" right?

If someone started a subject on the "death penalty" and I started posting "but what is truth?" they would be pretty annoyed, right?

I may report you. If you must know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then prison is a revenge fantasy.

You might as well threaten me with Mordor.

you're a hypocrite, you say you "lack belief", now your the 2nd definition of an "atheist", which makes you a liar for claiming to "lack belief".

Instead of running at the mouth, you might want to ask me questions so that you don't end up inserting your foot in your mouth.

I was asked for my views, and I gave my speculation on the origins of the idea of "Hell". Those speculations are consistent with my view that we live in a godless, natural universe.

That is not at all inconsistent with saying that I lack belief in God but don't claim to know that God doesn't exist. I don't claim to have an impossibility proof for the existence of any and all imaginable (or unimaginable) deities. However, that doesn't mean that I don't have a worldview in which I attempt to explain such concepts as Hell by reference to sociology.

That's an assumption, where's your proof?

It's not an assumption. It's a reasonable speculation. I don't claim to have "proof".

Do you agree that a murderer deserves the death penalty/life in prison for their crime(s)?

No, not necessarily. Do you think a little girl who steals a paperclip and then dies (before being saved) deserves Hell for eternity?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes it does, under "atheism"/"naturalism" rape wouldn't be wrong

You haven't spoken with enough naturalistic atheists. There are plenty of such who argue in favor of an ethics in which rape would be wrong. You might not agree with them regarding their ethical foundations, but they do take that position.

Yep, "libertarianism" which promotes Sins/wrongs such as abortion and homosexual behavior.

Libertarianism does no such thing. It may argue against the illegality of such actions, but that is not the same thing as promoting them.

What principles? "atheism" has no principles.

You are right that "atheism" does not. However, atheists may have principles.

No you can't, since Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead and "atheism" has no evidence, that means your only option according to Pascals Wager is The Lord Jesus Christ.

What would evidence for atheism look like?

is it wrong to warn others about prison so that they don't commit crimes?

It's no more wrong than warning others about Mordor so they don't commit crimes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there... facing the wrong way. This is exactly the point of contention between Hell in general, and Hell on Earth. Well done! Now we can debate it. If something prepares you for something else, how can you not say it has prepared you?

Well, I didn´t say nor meant to say it prepared us for something else. So you are asking me a question based on premises that are yours.

You are talking about Hellishness as if Hellishness is Hell. Well, it is Hell, but only when faced with a believer strong enough to put your Hellishness in its proper context!

I already knew that you believed in a Hell (afterlive torment style). I don´t.

 

[quatona]

My philosophy is that Hell being mine is worth talking about. I paid for it, with my blood (comes later) so it's mine. Ok, so its a work in progress, but I have a pretty effective plan for making it look popular, which I can't reveal, all at once. The point is essentially that, though: Hell is his.

And this will help you with exactly what once you will be there?