Hell 2

[tcampen]

Well, the misconception in this is that you will continue to call your own shots and that you will continue in a state of relative comfort. This is not the case. There is not a legitimate thing you enjoy without God's hand in it. In hell you won't even be able to get a glass of water.

I'm not saying this to frighten you, but because as a Christian I owe you the truth about these decisions you're making. The reward of sin is but for a moment, but the bitter consequences are forever.

The reason people don't believe is because they want to be in the driver's seat. This is a logical impossibility; it's over before it began. People don't want to be ruled by God. But it's a deception that God's rulership is burdensome. It's not. It's actually the only place where there is true liberty. I would encourage you to explore this concept for yourself.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

The reason people don't believe as YOU believe, is because they believe something different. It's really not as though I know you are right, but I refuse to accept that truth becuase of my own selfish desires to please myself. I can just as easily claim what you think is acting on behalf of God's will is just your own ego reinforcing a sense of superiority above all others by inventing a certain authority from god, and you're so deluded into this mindset you can't even realize this to be the truth! Does that seem like a fair analysis? No, I didn't think so either.

Some of us have been where you are now, as many who share your views have been where some of us are. True liberty come from the truth itself. If the truth revealed to me about God is inconsistent with YOUR proposed truth about God, who do I trust? You or God? Who would you trust?

And there's your answer. Give people some credit for being honest, informed and sincere in their beliefs, even though they may believe differently than you. To so dismissively declare we are all just selfish people hiding from the truth shows not only a lack of understanding, but perhaps an intent to hide from the truth yourself.

Blessings.

 

[tcampen]

Charles, you're asking the wrong questions. God is infallible, and perfect. So if someone goes to hell, it is just.

Why? How do I test your claims? Define infallible and perfect, then tell me God's qualities, and lets compare the two to see of your concept of God is consistent with the concepts of perfection and infallibility.

To say whatever your concept of God does is just and good and right simply won't cut it. You have to show why your ideas about God are more accurate than the rest of the worlds' including plenty of other Chrisitians who rely on the exact same bible you do.

What is "just"? Define that for us, then tell us how God handles things, and then we can compare the two and see if that claim is accurate. See what I mean? It isn't enough just to make conclusory statements and assume everyone should just accept them as true. I understand some people may operate that way, but others of us simply can't be honest intellectually or spiritually and not ask questions.

 

[secretdawn]

The question isn't what people believe, but what is true. Not what people believe is true, but what is true.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

Truth is a belief. For example 2+2=4, yes? Well, tell a child that it is 5 and never give him the opportunity to believe otherwise, and he will believe with the same conviction that it is 5 as you do it is 4.
People who are of other religions, or no religion at all believe in their truths as much as you do yours, and since none of this can be physically proven right now at this very moment, it is all a matter of belief. While you are saying in your mind "but this is how it is, there is no questions" others are saying the same thing about their beliefs.

 

[Chilldogg77]

"Why? How do I test your claims? Define infallible and perfect, then tell me God's qualities, and lets compare the two to see of your concept of God is consistent with the concepts of perfection and infallibility."

Infallible-always right, never wrong
Perfect-The best something can possibly be

So I guess what you're asking me is how do I know that my concept of God's actions and will is compatible with my concept of his perfection and infallibility. Well, I know of no other religion/belief system that makes as much sense to me, and reveals a greater concept of God. I can imagine a being far greater than a human, and yet willing to humble himself out of love to become one, and willing further to be mocked, tortured, and killed by his creatures, for their sake. I believe this God would reveal the truth to us, and would not decieve us. Jesus repeatedly talks about hell, and I don't think he's lying. I believe that the whole purpose of life on earth is for us to freely choose God. We couldn't make this choice if we were immediately enraptured in the ecstacy of union with God, we would be loving him not for him, but for the way he makes us feel. It wouldn't be a real choice. So in order for it to be possible to reject God, God had to make a place separate from him, to make this choice a possibility.
Now here's where people start to consider the possibility of them being unjustly thrown into hell. They might say something like this: "All my experience has lead me to believe that there is no God. If I die and find that he does exist, I don't think it is just for God to throw me in hell because I made a mistake." Maybe you're right, maybe you're not about this concept of justice. Maybe you will come to believe and to accept him after death, and be saved through him. I don't know, and it's not my place to judge. I do strongly believe this: You will be judged, and you will see your life as God saw it. It is impossible that you will see this and say to yourself that you deserve heaven and be thrown into hell. This would mean that God acted unjustly, and made an error, or that he allowed you to remain in error and blame him. If you go to hell, you deserve to go. And if you deserve to go, but you appeal to his profound mercy, you still won't go.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

The reason people don't believe as YOU believe, is because they believe something different. It's really not as though I know you are right, but I refuse to accept that truth becuase of my own selfish desires to please myself.

T, again, you're concerned about who believes the truth rather than what the truth is. This isn't going to lead you to heaven because the priorities are earthly. Human, not divine. Concerned with esteeming man rather than God. The freedom of personal sovereignty rather than conformity to the truth of our sovereign God. What right or even capability do we have to make assumptions about God? Or truth?

Again, this is the heart of it: truth has to be sought for truth's sake. It doesn't matter who believes what. What matters is, what is right? What is true? Who is the source of this truth? Until we grapple thoroughly with this question, we will not arrive at the truth.

Please understand, this is not a judgment or a criticism or anything else of the kind. It's merely the truth. Until truth is the only priority, we cannot find it. We'll be worried about earthly things-pride, posessions, freedoms, equality, preferences. These are all things of the earth, sought by man for man's sake, are they not? None of these has at its core a desire for knowledge of the ways of God. None of these seeks to conform to another way of doing things than what pleases us. These are devoid of any sought relationship with the Creator.

These earthly priorities only get in the way of our being able to see the truth, because we tend to make decisions according to our emotions. We tend to filter information through them. Not by what is sound, but by what feels comfortable and gives us what we want. Your main complaint is that this does not flatter man. But flattering man is not the road to truth. Truth is the road to truth.

Earthly priorities create distortion, and they are really the first priority in the postmodern movement. And not just postmodernism, but the fallen mentalities of common man. Postmodernism is just an official go-ahead from the academy to give each other empowerment in seeking what will drive people away from the truth. But, who gave the academy this authority? God, or themselves?

The truth about God can only be found with God Himself.

I can just as easily claim what you think is acting on behalf of God's will is just your own ego reinforcing a sense of superiority above all others by inventing a certain authority from god, and you're so deluded into this mindset you can't even realize this to be the truth! Does that seem like a fair analysis? No, I didn't think so either.

You can claim anything you want, but the question is, si this the truth? And no, it isn't. Clearly not, because I never esteem the priorities of man and I am not a respecter of persons-except for God Himself. So you can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. The same is true of the rest of postmodernism. This is the essential truth that postmodernism fails to acknowledge: we cannot invent truth.

You acknowledge that your analysis wasn't fair. So I esteem you for your honesty. And of course the argument would fail because I do not esteem myself. I don't pat myself on the back. Always, the priority must be to point to God. God, God, GOD. Not MAN.

Some of us have been where you are now, as many who share your views have been where some of us are. True liberty come from the truth itself. If the truth revealed to me about God is inconsistent with YOUR proposed truth about God, who do I trust? You or God? Who would you trust?

A person cannot have any revealed truth that does not have at its heart the desire to humble man and esteem God. Anything focused on flattering men of any any and all beliefs, cannot be rooted in truth because this seeks to flatter and esteem all things, even that which is not true.

And there's your answer. Give people some credit for being honest, informed and sincere in their beliefs, even though they may believe differently than you. To so dismissively declare we are all just selfish people hiding from the truth shows not only a lack of understanding, but perhaps an intent to hide from the truth yourself.

Then why are you the one so intent on flattering man? How can this lead to God? To know the truth costs us all our pride. As it is written:

Mt 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mt 23:12 - And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

And of course this only makes logical sense. After all, how can anyone seek to esteem man as the source of wisdom, and thereby find God, who is greater than man?

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Truth is a belief. For example 2+2=4, yes? Well, tell a child that it is 5 and never give him the opportunity to believe otherwise, and he will believe with the same conviction that it is 5 as you do it is 4.
People who are of other religions, or no religion at all believe in their truths as much as you do yours, and since none of this can be physically proven right now at this very moment, it is all a matter of belief. While you are saying in your mind "but this is how it is, there is no questions" others are saying the same thing about their beliefs.

No. The two are not synonomous. You can believe something, but it doesn't make it true. Truth is reality, while belief is what someone thinks is reality. Whether or not you have the capabilities to coerce fleshly proof of the divine (do you see the mixing of apples and oranges here?) has no bearing on the truth. Something isn't true because it is proven, it is true because it is true. No man can force God to reveal Himself. He does it of His own free will. And anyone who says that with fleshly eyes you can see the divine is so farfetched it's incredible. God will reveal Himself to whomever He wishes. He does so in response to faith. If you demand proof, which you cannot demand from God, you will never see His face. Guaranteed.

 

[tcampen]

"Why? How do I test your claims? Define infallible and perfect, then tell me God's qualities, and lets compare the two to see of your concept of God is consistent with the concepts of perfection and infallibility."

Infallible-always right, never wrong
Perfect-The best something can possibly be

So I guess what you're asking me is how do I know that my concept of God's actions and will is compatible with my concept of his perfection and infallibility. Well, I know of no other religion/belief system that makes as much sense to me, and reveals a greater concept of God. I can imagine a being far greater than a human, and yet willing to humble himself out of love to become one, and willing further to be mocked, tortured, and killed by his creatures, for their sake. I believe this God would reveal the truth to us, and would not decieve us. Jesus repeatedly talks about hell, and I don't think he's lying. I believe that the whole purpose of life on earth is for us to freely choose God. We couldn't make this choice if we were immediately enraptured in the ecstacy of union with God, we would be loving him not for him, but for the way he makes us feel. It wouldn't be a real choice. So in order for it to be possible to reject God, God had to make a place separate from him, to make this choice a possibility.
Now here's where people start to consider the possibility of them being unjustly thrown into hell. They might say something like this: "All my experience has lead me to believe that there is no God. If I die and find that he does exist, I don't think it is just for God to throw me in hell because I made a mistake." Maybe you're right, maybe you're not about this concept of justice. Maybe you will come to believe and to accept him after death, and be saved through him. I don't know, and it's not my place to judge. I do strongly believe this: You will be judged, and you will see your life as God saw it. It is impossible that you will see this and say to yourself that you deserve heaven and be thrown into hell. This would mean that God acted unjustly, and made an error, or that he allowed you to remain in error and blame him. If you go to hell, you deserve to go. And if you deserve to go, but you appeal to his profound mercy, you still won't go.

I appreciate the fact you recognize the ultimately subjective nature of the analysis. You personally see your concept of God as being ultimately just, good and infallible based on the criteria you provided. I view those same factors and come to a very different conclusion about your concept of God.

So, I guess we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[tcampen]

T, again, you're concerned about who believes the truth rather than what the truth is. This isn't going to lead you to heaven because the priorities are earthly. Human, not divine. Concerned with esteeming man rather than God. The freedom of personal sovereignty rather than conformity to the truth of our sovereign God. What right or even capability do we have to make assumptions about God? Or truth?

The variation of beliefs about the exact same God and exact same bible is convincing evidence that the so called "truth" regarding a supernatural entity is not an objective type of truth. That's my point.

Again, this is the heart of it: truth has to be sought for truth's sake. It doesn't matter who believes what. What matters is, what is right? What is true? Who is the source of this truth? Until we grapple thoroughly with this question, we will not arrive at the truth.

I agree, and my conclusion of the truth is that there appears to be no means of asserting any ascertainable truth about the supernatural in an objective fashion. Truth strives to be an objective reality. Objective truths do not require a particular religious belief to recognize it as the truth by definition. For religious faith is based primarily on personal revelation (and often supported by particular interpretations of scripture). This is a subjective process for it relies on the personal experience of the individual. Because this spiritual faith is ultimately based on a personal, subjective experience, it cannot be the prerequisit to comprehending an objective truth, for obvious reasons.

Please understand, this is not a judgment or a criticism or anything else of the kind. It's merely the truth. Until truth is the only priority, we cannot find it. We'll be worried about earthly things-pride, posessions, freedoms, equality, preferences. These are all things of the earth, sought by man for man's sake, are they not? None of these has at its core a desire for knowledge of the ways of God. None of these seeks to conform to another way of doing things than what pleases us. These are devoid of any sought relationship with the Creator.

This is truth of your subjective, personal spirituality. It does not share the qualities of an objective truth which can be recognized regardless of one's position of supernatural entities. That is not to discount your experience. I trust your spirituality is honest, devote and sincere.

The truth about God can only be found with God Himself.



You can claim anything you want, but the question is, si this the truth? And no, it isn't. Clearly not, because I never esteem the priorities of man and I am not a respecter of persons-except for God Himself. So you can claim it, but it doesn't make it true. The same is true of the rest of postmodernism. This is the essential truth that postmodernism fails to acknowledge: we cannot invent truth.

And you can claim whatever you like as well, and that doesn't make it true either. If I claim God revealed the Truth to me, and that real Truth is very different from what you are representing, you would say I'm wrong because it does not conform to your concept of God and your interpretation of certain scriptures.

You acknowledge that your analysis wasn't fair. So I esteem you for your honesty. And of course the argument would fail because I do not esteem myself. I don't pat myself on the back. Always, the priority must be to point to God. God, God, GOD. Not MAN.



A person cannot have any revealed truth that does not have at its heart the desire to humble man and esteem God. Anything focused on flattering men of any any and all beliefs, cannot be rooted in truth because this seeks to flatter and esteem all things, even that which is not true.



Then why are you the one so intent on flattering man? How can this lead to God? To know the truth costs us all our pride. As it is written:

Mt 18:4 - Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mt 23:12 - And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

And of course this only makes logical sense. After all, how can anyone seek to esteem man as the source of wisdom, and thereby find God, who is greater than man?

Blessings,
Whitehorse

Objective truth exists independent of any being, man, cow, God, you name it. It is true for truth's sake. By disagreeing with your analysis of what the truth is, I am not putting man on any pedistal, making man the greatest being in the universe, or even making man the source of wisdom. In fact, wisdom is quality, and adjective to discribe a person, not a thing to be created at all. I do seek the truth, where ever it presents itself. In this particular case, however, I only happen to disagree with your analysis, not God's.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

The variation of beliefs about the exact same God and exact same bible is convincing evidence that the so called "truth" regarding a supernatural entity is not an objective type of truth. That's my point.

The variation of beliefs only reveals that some people don't have the truth. It does not prove there is no objective truth. TO say there is no objective truth is a logical impossibility.

I agree, and my conclusion of the truth is that there appears to be no means of asserting any ascertainable truth about the supernatural in an objective fashion.

Hm. I'd say this is half correct: we cannot discern or attain the truth about God-He has to reveal it, because we are temporal, while He is eternal. He is spirit while we are flesh. We can see Him with the eyes of our souls, but not with temporal eyes. But God has to remove the blinders. We can never do it ourselves, for we are but flesh.

But is there a means of knowing and asserting the truth? By God's great generosity, mercy, and willingness, yes. Sure there is. But people don't want to relinquish the throne. To do so is an act of God Himself. People look to create their own realities. This is the heart of postmodernism-a logical failure of catastrophic proportions.

Truth strives to be an objective reality. Objective truths do not require a particular religious belief to recognize it as the truth by definition.

Hm. This presupposes that there is no God behind the truth. It personifies truth as its own entity apart from God. But in reality, God is, and He is also the Creator of reality. This is a key principle.

For religious faith is based primarily on personal revelation (and often supported by particular interpretations of scripture). This is a subjective process for it relies on the personal experience of the individual. Because this spiritual faith is ultimately based on a personal, subjective experience, it cannot be the prerequisit to comprehending an objective truth, for obvious reasons.

Actually, this is backwards. The truth comes from God who reveals it in His word. Then, after He indwells us, we have the benefit of His Holy Spirit. But the authority is God through His written word, not personal experience. Although there are some denominations who do have it mixed up and put more focus on their experiences-and that's how they end up in error. That adds to the confusion. The variance is not based on a lack of truth, but a lack of acquiring the truth through misconceptions and false means.

This is truth of your subjective, personal spirituality. It does not share the qualities of an objective truth which can be recognized regardless of one's position of supernatural entities. That is not to discount your experience. I trust your spirituality is honest, devote and sincere.

Actually, no-this discounts the authority. THe authority of God, and the written Word in which He has revealed it. Subjective experiences can certainly lead to error, because there is a whole host of angelic beings, both fallen and unfallen. And the devil is as an angel of light-a deceiver. That's why it's ever so crucial to observe and remain under the authority of God Himself. Of course the experinces that are valid line up with scripture completely and pass the testing of the spirits. And they're always true and lead to truth. No one can force God to reveal truth to him, but if you seek Him on His terms, He is extremely generous and will reveal Himself. He promises it. But He isn't accountable to anyone, and is untouched by human lack of belief. He depends on no one. He cannot be manipulated. He does not allow His children to walk by sight, because think about it-what can we see of Him? Nothing withour His revelation. That's why we have to walk by faith. It is the inroads to God, because it alone can reach Him, because faith is entirely dependent on and acknowledging of God's sovereignty.

And you can claim whatever you like as well, and that doesn't make it true either. If I claim God revealed the Truth to me, and that real Truth is very different from what you are representing, you would say I'm wrong because it does not conform to your concept of God and your interpretation of certain scriptures.

Again-this thinking is engtained in an ideology of man as sovereign. You're right-my claiming it doesn't make it true. But God revealed it, and that makes it true.

Objective truth exists independent of any being, man, cow, God, you name it. It is true for truth's sake.

Amen!!

By disagreeing with your analysis of what the truth is, I am not putting man on any pedistal, making man the greatest being in the universe, or even making man the source of wisdom. In fact, wisdom is quality, and adjective to discribe a person, not a thing to be created at all. I do seek the truth, where ever it presents itself. In this particular case, however, I only happen to disagree with your analysis, not God's.

It isn't your disagreement with me that puts man as sovereign. If I thought this because of your disagreement with me, then I would likewise be making man sovereign, and of course you know by now that I'm not going to do that.

It's the fact that all your arguments are based on human reasoning. It's your belief that we can arrive at the truth on our own, which we cannot: only God can reveal it, and we become recipients of it by His grace. This is missing in your statements. It's the focus on who believes what. It's the idea that the reasoning behind your statements never reach the throne room of God. In reality, the truth begins and ends with God, and His authority in being God.

I'd be pleased however, to discuss how you feel you have God's analysis of things and that God is in disagreement with His own word.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Great, T. I just burned the chestnut cream because of you. And I'm certain once everyone tastes it, they will agree that's the absolute truth!

Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving,
Whitehorse

 

[Lillithspeak]

Trying to talk with someone who uses circular reasoning is a total waste of time. (They know the truth because they know what is truthful because the book they read is the truth.) Sheesh. Never one ounce of rational thought goes into anything they believe. Give it up. They'll be in for real surprise when the reality hits them in the face.

 

[Chilldogg77]

The discussion seems to have moved from hell to truth. Both are interesting, so I'll jump in again. Tcampen and whitehorse seem to be struggling to find some middle ground. Whitehorse says that all truth is revealed to us by God.
Nonsence, T might say, what about the truths of math, science, history, etc? These are objective truths, unlike your subjective religious truths.
Ah, says whitehorse, but what would man be able to learn/discover without God? Nothing! Because we and everything else would not exist without God.
But God has not revealed to me that he even exists, says Tcampen, and there's no way to show objectively that he does.
Enter Chilldogg. What if I could show you, Tcampen, a mountain of evidence that no one could explain without the existence of God, that strongly points to God as the source of this evidence? I'm talking about actual events and physical evidence that can be and often have been researched and scrutinized. I'm talking about miracles. Through miracles, God reveals his existence to anyone willing to learn about them. This is objective and factual, and not based on only personal revelation, which you may doubt the credibility of. I encourage you to look into accepted miracles of the Catholic Church. They do not easily accept miracles, but send people to search very hard for any sort of natural explanation. Were they to accept the miracle, and have it later discounted, they would look very foolish. Some of the most famous cases are the incorruptibles, bodies of saints who have not decomposed, the miracle at fatima and the prophecies of fatima, and the stigmata, medically documented cases of people recieving the wounds of Christ. This is just the tip of the iceburg, that I mention off the top of my head. If you search for objective religious truth, or at least objective evidence to be vindicated or discounted, give it a chance and see what you think. You have little to lose and much to gain.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Chili, I certainly see what you're saying about the miracles, and it's true.

Here's what's happening between Tcampen and me: we cannot agree on hell if we don't agree on the *source* of truth about God. Because, to find the truth, we have to know where to find it. So, it isn't about finding middle ground, because the ultimate goal isn't to agree. It's to debate the source of truth, so to compromise would be to move away from that and accept some error.

So, if the source of truth is man, which it cannot be because man did not create himself and has never seen God with fleshly eyes, then anyone who holds this view that man is the source would not believe the God he's never seen, nor the hell he's never seen...nor the miracles he's never seen. Because his stance would be that he can create his own reality, and if he hasn't seen something contrary to the normal workings of nature, it would require proof for him to accept it.

What I'm saying is, truth is outside of what we accept. To accept something or not to accept it has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true. So, the man-centered method of determining truth is erroneous because it leaves out the biggest factor of all: the source of all truth.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[Chilldogg77]

I don't think Tcampen would say that the source of truth is man. He might just say that man can discern objective truth, but there's no way for him to do that with religious truth. Which is why I bring up miracles and history, which are objective things which can lead us to realize religious truths. In other words, I don't expect him to take our word for it, because there doesn't seem to him to be an objective reason for him to believe that we are right and he is wrong.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Yes, I see what you're saying. You make some good points.

I would also invite you to consider this: right now we're in what some experts believe is the tail end of a social/philosophical movement called postmodernism. You will find proponents of it anywhere you go. This movement says there is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore people can have conflicting ideas, and according to this movement, each "truth" may be true for the person who has it. THis movement says what may be true for one person is not true for another.

Postmodernism's predecessor was modernism. Modernism says there is an absolute truth, and we can arrive at the truth on our own, through reason. But of course God is supernatural and we are temporal, so we cannot. Once the academy figured this out, postmedernism grew out of it, saying, "We can't wade through this on our own, so let's just have fun playing with this contradictory soup."

But this is a logical impossibility. Because if they say there is no such thing as absolute truth...is that the truth? Either answer, yes or no, completely turns this worldview into rubble. It's a logical impossibility.

But in choosing truth, the seductive power of postmodernism, what does this imply about man?

It's a privilege to discuss this with you.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[First Echelon]

Hell was created to maintain order.

People will not step out of their place if they are promised eternal suffering, will they?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Hell was created to maintain order.

People will not step out of their place if they are promised eternal suffering, will they?

They do it all the time.

 

[Chilldogg77]

Hell was created to maintain order.

People will not step out of their place if they are promised eternal suffering, will they?

So when Jesus, a rebel who was killed by the established authorities, said that those who did not feed, clothe, visit the least among them, would be separated from those who did, what order was he trying to keep? If it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, how does this teaching help the elites?

 

[Chilldogg77]

"Postmodernism's predecessor was modernism. Modernism says there is an absolute truth, and we can arrive at the truth on our own, through reason. But of course God is supernatural and we are temporal, so we cannot."

Well, what does "on our own" mean? We can't exist on our own. But does it take a supernatural occurance? I'm sure that there are people who have accepted Jesus through reason, which then lead to faith. I think our chances of discovering the truth are much better if we humbly ask God to lead us to it, but I don't think that this is absolutely necessary. St. Augustine seems to have discovered the truth in this manner, and he became a man of great faith. So I'm not quite ready to totally discount modernism, although I agree with the rest of what you're saying.

 

[First Echelon]

I agree that people do it all the time, that is why I ended in the question, Will they?

But there is no possibly more effective attempt at control.

We watch criminals be punished but we still commit crimes.

We see lovers torn apart but we still love.

Although Hell is not perfect, it does incite a general order.

Without incentive to do well, people would slowly skew their ideas of right and wrong.