Jigoku (Japanese Hell in Buddhism) & seeing why it's pointless condemning Christian Belief in Hell

[Jane_the_Bane]

Comparing Christian salvation to a "membership card" is more than a bit of a generalization of a strawman.

You would have a point here if Christians didn't do it themselves:

Note that this clip is intended as a sort of "advertisement". Not so much for non-Christians (who will most likely see it as the dystopian horror that it is), but as a re-affirmation for believers who can feel good about themselves after learning once more that their deeds don't matter as long as they've got the Jesus card.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

My more relevant point was lost here, though:

other punitive afterlive concepts have got corrective purposes - like prisons, or fines. They're still places that you'd want to avoid at all costs (due to the horrifying torture scenarios usually associated with them), but they are NOT an end-in-itself. They serve as cleansing mechanisms, and they are just extremely unpleasant waystations on the road towards salvation

Christian hell, though? Not so much. Not only is hell the universal default destination of all humankind (because even at our best, Christianity declares that we deserve nothing but eternal torment), it also serves no purpose beyond torturing everyone who is not a Christian - regardless of whether they are serial killers or altruistic philanthropists. In fact, according to Christian orthodoxy, a psychotic mass murderer who "finds Jesus" will go to heaven while the unselfish person spending their entire life helping others without expecting anything in return will be headed for "wailing and gnashing of teeth" if they don't turn Christian at some point.
It is an end-in-itself. There is no further function to its torments, no purification, no redemption. Just an eternity of meaningless suffering.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The truth it's impossible to steer love in the right guidance without a guide like Jesus.

Messengerhood and Prophethood falls on certain physical ears, but the station of leadership that is universal justice.

The issue is leadership is either delegated to many creatures like many Angels or representatives of Angels at the same time, like everywhere with every soul, or it makes more sense to have one universal leader.

Recognizing the light for what is, all good lies in that.

Humans who do good but not realize a person like Jesus, still are in need of guidance from the guide and all good is channeled through such a guide like Moses, Abraham, etc, true kings.


The one who God channels through, the light itself, and the holder to the light, as well God the source of it in the origin, they are intertwined that Quran expresses it "God is the light of the heavens and the earth"
It's evil however when clear reminders and proofs to that connection is provided to turn away from that connection and path, and deny it's link to God and how it emanates from God.

And the reason why it's one leader is to avoid complications of delegation and other good reasons including unity of mankind on a rope from God.

 

[dlamberth]

The truth it's impossible to steer love in the right guidance without a guide like Jesus.

When watching a mother bonding with her new born child, or pictures I see of a father protectively caring his children away from bombs falling out of the sky, or my friend Jen who has given her life to her Down Syndrome daughter, all of that and more has given me an understanding of just how crazy wrong your statement is.

 

[AskTheFamily]

When watching a mother bonding with her new born child, or pictures I see of a father protectively caring his children away from bombs falling out of the sky, or my friend Jen who has given her life to her Down Syndrome daughter, all of that and more has given me an understanding of just how crazy wrong your statement is.

How's it wrong what I stated by what you stated?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Remember, Prophethood and Messengerhood require physical ears, as scripture - and real particular language.

Leadership is a light with all humans whether they recognize who or what that light is, or not.

 

[dlamberth]

How's it wrong what I stated by what you stated?

I gave examples where Love is steered in the right guidance with no Jesus in sight. When we listen it, the Human Soul knows Love.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You gave an example with the Guide not in physical sight or his station not known but you gave no example of how a good deed doesn't need a Guide.

It's impossible in fact. This is the heart of the thesis of Suratal Qaaf.

In the Unseen, Jesus was like green emerald mountain by which strength is relied upon by all humans, the tree of life extended to all.

God channels his light and goodness through such souls, the problem is not that people oppose the light in itself, it's when they recognize and know it's a human leader that God does this through and that human vessel is brought out to humans in public, boy, even with miracles and other proofs, do they oppose that human.

Let's talk about the Thesis of Suratal Qaaf. I'll let you read it, reflect, and then we can discuss the two companions, one which misguides but is ever watching, and the other that guides, but is ever watching, and these two judgmeent and two visions in the unseen, we choose between them.

 

[dlamberth]

Remember, Prophethood and Messengerhood require physical ears, as scripture - and real particular language.

Leadership is a light with all humans whether they recognize who or what that light is, or not.

The language of the Prophets is the language of our Souls. We all, each and every one of us have the same language within us. The Prophets and Saints are trying to get us to listen to what we already know. Yes, leadership is a Light...the Light of the Soul.

 

[dlamberth]

You gave an example with the Guide not in physical sight or his station not known but you gave no example of how a good deed doesn't need a Guide.

The best guide is within. We are often way too busy looking outside of ourselves for Salvation.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The language of the Prophets is the language of our Souls. We all, each and every one of us have the same language within us. The Prophets and Saints are trying to get us to listen to what we already know. Yes, leadership is a Light...the Light of the Soul.

The light by which guides humans, is not us, but another human, mainly that witness shows us who we are through truth. The other companion, Qareen, he inspires as well, but that of misguidance.

Let us discuss Suratal Qaaf. Tell me when you have read it.

I think in that lies a very important realization.

Morality is not a dead concept, and yet, the leader like Jesus was of his time, is the light of the soul.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The best guide is within. We are often way too busy looking outside of ourselves for Salvation.

The thing is about the two Qareens in Suratal Qaaf, we sometimes can't distinguish them from ourselves. And it's the guide that is trying to separate all three, ourselves, the misguiding companion, and the guiding witness companion.... but most humans, they see it all as merged identity and confuse it all.

 

[AskTheFamily]

The best guide is within. We are often way too busy looking outside of ourselves for Salvation.

Also to add, the light with us (the leader), it's a blessing if God brings him out to humanity in human mortal form so that he can guide not only in the spiritual realm, but confirm all that in the outward realm.

The thing is we aren't capable of recognizing who that leader is without proofs from God. And holy books are to compliment such leaders in that everything they teach, somehow are in God's book, and they can bring about all the wonders of the sacred book revealed by God in time that we are capable of receiving and grasping.

 

[Silmarien]

Christian hell, though? Not so much. Not only is hell the universal default destination of all humankind (because even at our best, Christianity declares that we deserve nothing but eternal torment)

I think you mean Calvinism. Nobody else really conceptualizes it in quite those terms--it's actually quite possible to be a humanist and a fullblown Augustinian. The fact that even our best is not good enough does not mean we deserve eternal suffering.

In fact, according to Christian orthodoxy, a psychotic mass murderer who "finds Jesus" will go to heaven while the unselfish person spending their entire life helping others without expecting anything in return will be headed for "wailing and gnashing of teeth" if they don't turn Christian at some point.

If you are going to cite "Christian orthodoxy," could you at least do so in a manner that is actually consistent with that orthodoxy? The concept of the virtuous pagan runs throughout all of Christian history, so it's pretty clear that inclusivism is as traditional a position as exclusivism is. And it is if anything the majority position currently, so attacking Christianity over what is a minority view makes very little sense.

That said, I don't see the problem in the psychotic mass murderer who genuinely repents having a better shot at salvation than the naturally good person who never sought God. The Christian notion of salvation seems closer to an invitation into relationship than a reward for righteous living, so it would make sense that responding to that invitation would matter more than racking up brownie points. Or to look at salvation from a more Greek perspective, sin is a spiritual illness, and the cure for it is not good works. If heaven and hell are subjective responses to being in God's presence, then no amount of community service is going to make that experience paradise for you if you can't accept it.

I also find it interesting how horrified people can be at the idea of an evil person finding redemption. I see this with Christians who can't handle Universal Reconciliation--they insist that justice cannot possibly be served if the true monsters of history can find salvation in the end. (Why this wasn't true a moment before their death if it's true immediately after is beyond me, but oh well.) It always makes me think of the Parable of the Workers (Matthew 20:1-16), and how difficult we find the notion of radical equality without reference to merit.

It is an end-in-itself. There is no further function to its torments, no purification, no redemption. Just an eternity of meaningless suffering.

Unless the Universalists or Annihiliationists are correct.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think you mean Calvinism. Nobody else really conceptualizes it in quite those terms--it's actually quite possible to be a humanist and a fullblown Augustinian. The fact that even our best is not good enough does not mean we deserve eternal suffering.



If you are going to cite "Christian orthodoxy," could you at least do so in a manner that is actually consistent with that orthodoxy? The concept of the virtuous pagan runs throughout all of Christian history, so it's pretty clear that inclusivism is as traditional a position as exclusivism is. And it is if anything the majority position currently, so attacking Christianity over what is a minority view makes very little sense.

That said, I don't see the problem in the psychotic mass murderer who genuinely repents having a better shot at salvation than the naturally good person who never sought God. The Christian notion of salvation seems closer to an invitation into relationship than a reward for righteous living, so it would make sense that responding to that invitation would matter more than racking up brownie points. Or to look at salvation from a more Greek perspective, sin is a spiritual illness, and the cure for it is not good works. If heaven and hell are subjective responses to being in God's presence, then no amount of community service is going to make that experience paradise for you if you can't accept it.

I also find it interesting how horrified people can be at the idea of an evil person finding redemption. I see this with Christians who can't handle Universal Reconciliation--they insist that justice cannot possibly be served if the true monsters of history can find salvation in the end. (Why this wasn't true a moment before their death if it's true immediately after is beyond me, but oh well.) It always makes me think of the Parable of the Workers (Matthew 20:1-16), and how difficult we find the notion of radical equality without reference to merit.

Good points...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Calvinist/Reformed Christianity is the branch that has influenced most of the anglophone world (and its colonies). And the other major player that has also influenced many countries due to colonial expansion, Catholicism, goes by "extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

So pardon me if I don't quite buy into the whole "the Christian mainstream is universalist and/or annihilationist"-shpiel. Just because the Christian intelligentsia have embraced a less barbaric interpretation, this does NOT render them the majority or even the mainstream.
Pointing to these forums as evidence might be absurd, as the sample they present consists mostly of evangelicals and fundamentalists heavily influenced by Reformed theology, but let's look at where Christianity is flourishing, and which factions within Christianity are flourishing, specifically. Most Christian nations in Africa are either heavily influenced by American evangelicalism (to the point where their anti-LGBT*-laws turn murderous or call for life-imprisonment for "sodomites") or by the Catholic Church (which, at the end of the day, is NEITHER inclusivistic NOR embraces annihilation of the unredeemed sinner). The same goes for Latin America and Southeast Asia.
In Europe, things are a little different: the German Lutheran Church is positively liberal, the Scandinavian churches, too, and even parts of the Anglican church appear to be quite progressive. But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Last but not least, the Orthodox Church embraces the most interesting concept of hell, but that does not render the suffering associated with it any less eternal or pointless.

 

[Silmarien]

So pardon me if I don't quite buy into the whole "the Christian mainstream is universalist and/or annihilationist"-shpiel. Just because the Christian intelligentsia have embraced a less barbaric interpretation, this does NOT render them the majority or even the mainstream.

Nobody ever said that mainstream Christianity is universalist or annihilationist. The point was that you cannot state that the Christian hell is necessarily an end-in-itself, because there are theological schools which would say otherwise, and they might be correct.

The truth or falsehood of Christian theology is not a popularity contest. Universalism or Annihilationism might ultimately be true even if the entire Christian world decided otherwise, so if you're not going to take such possibilities into account, a theological argument would be more appropriate than appealing to what the mainstream says.

Last but not least, the Orthodox Church embraces the most interesting concept of hell, but that does not render the suffering associated with it any less eternal or pointless.

Several of the most influential Church Fathers within Orthodoxy (Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor) were universalists, so Orthodoxy is fairly neutral on whether or not hell is eternal. As far as I'm aware, the only view that is not permitted is that everyone will definitely be saved, as it interferes with free will and the possibility that someone will eternally choose damnation.

It's also not clear that eternal hell is a worse or more pointless fate than nonexistence. No matter how much a person has dehumanized themselves, eternal existence, even a hellish one, might reinforce their worth in a way that utter destruction does not. (This is one of the arguments against Annihilationism, and it's not a bad one. I don't love the concept of eternal hell, but I think Annihilationism might be more disturbing.)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nobody ever said that mainstream Christianity is universalist or annihilationist. The point was that you cannot state that the Christian hell is necessarily an end-in-itself, because there are theological schools which would say otherwise, and they might be correct.

The truth or falsehood of Christian theology is not a popularity contest. Universalism or Annihilationism might ultimately be true even if the entire Christian world decided otherwise, so if you're not going to take such possibilities into account, a theological argument would be more appropriate than appealing to what the mainstream says.

Well, if we are talking purely intellectual/philosophical/theological speculation, then yes: you have a point.
IF there was a supreme deity and IF that deity exhibited the characteristics most commonly associated with such entities (benevolence, wisdom, justice, etc.), then the Cosmic Auschwitz scenario can basically be dismissed.

That is not why such afterlife concepts bother me so much, though. The reason why they do has got EVERYTHING to do with how many people believe in it, and isn't touched at all by the scenario's plausibility or likelihood of existing.
See, I don't believe any of this to begin with. To me, afterlife concepts are basically wish fulfillment fantasies in the vein of Cockaigne, with different levels of intellectual sophistication depending on your religion or particular tradition, but still plugging into the same psychological needs and fears.
What bothers me is how the world view of people who DO believe in these things affect how they interact with the rest of us and the world: their politics, their perception of people, their conception of morality, their relationship toward authoritarianism, etc.
This is where it really makes a difference whether you believe in Cosmic Auschwitz or not, as it informs your whole outlook. (Granted, there will always be individuals who manage to be kind and humanitarian even while believing the most atrocious things; but on the whole, there is a reason why Saudi Arabia is a lot more problematic as a society than, say, Sweden.)

 

[Silmarien]

What bothers me is how the world view of people who DO believe in these things affect how they interact with the rest of us and the world: their politics, their perception of people, their conception of morality, their relationship toward authoritarianism, etc.
This is where it really makes a difference whether you believe in Cosmic Auschwitz or not, as it informs your whole outlook. (Granted, there will always be individuals who manage to be kind and humanitarian even while believing the most atrocious things; but on the whole, there is a reason why Saudi Arabia is a lot more problematic as a society than, say, Sweden.)

I actually have similar concerns. I don't think the problem is specifically eternal hell, since if you approach it as a possibility that you as an individual might face if you don't bother to try to live your life correctly, it can actually be somewhat motivational, depending on your underying theology. It's the OSAS crowd I find particularly problematic, though, because now you have a conviction about your own righteousness combined with the certainty that specific groups who think differently are surely damned.

And that leads to problems, of course. Socially, politically, even theologically, I would say. I mean, this is actually one of the reasons I can't discard eternal hell entirely--I look at this particular variation of Christianity, this abuse of the Gospel to bask in one's own self-righteousness while treating one's neighbor like dirt, and I remember that all of those warnings in the Synoptics are actually addressed at believers rather than nonbelievers. And that is a subtlety that gets overlooked almost always.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I actually have similar concerns. I don't think the problem is specifically eternal hell, since if you approach it as a possibility that you as an individual might face if you don't bother to try to live your life correctly, it can actually be somewhat motivational, depending on your underying theology.

Except for one little problem: deterrents don't work, for a wide range of reasons. Justice systems that basically equate justice with socially accepted revenge and go out of their way to emphasise punishment and humiliation face both larger recidivity rates and more violent crime. Unsurprisingly, I might add.

It's the OSAS crowd I find particularly problematic, though, because now you have a conviction about your own righteousness combined with the certainty that specific groups who think differently are surely damned.

And that leads to problems, of course. Socially, politically, even theologically, I would say. I mean, this is actually one of the reasons I can't discard eternal hell entirely--I look at this particular variation of Christianity, this abuse of the Gospel to bask in one's own self-righteousness while treating one's neighbor like dirt, and I remember that all of those warnings in the Synoptics are actually addressed at believers rather than nonbelievers. And that is a subtlety that gets overlooked almost always.

Trump-supporting evangelicals certainly are the spitting image of the "Lord, Lord"-criers of Matthew 7:20ff & the goats in Matt 25, right down to their utter disregard for the poor, the prisoner and the refugee.

Still, none of that would render a Cosmic Auschwitz scenario any less unacceptable.