Sending atheists to Hell is Evil

[Golden Yak]

If you were to design an appropriate system of everlasting life, what would it's characteristics be, in your own mind, in order to take in such varied humans as you, me, Hitler and Ghandi?

This question wasn't addressed to me, but it's an interesting one. To my mind, a temporary reformative hell is infinitely preferable to an eternal one.

If people in heaven wouldn't object to killers and child molestors being there with them after repenting and accepting Jesus, is it so terrible a concept to have these same criminals undergo some kind of supernatural rehabiliation and then be released from damnation?

Certainly that has to be better than putting both Hitler and Ghandi in the same pit for ever, which is where they both are if christianity is true (although Hitler might be in heaven since he professed belief in God and Jesus - as far as I know, Ghandi was hindu.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

This question wasn't addressed to me, but it's an interesting one. To my mind, a temporary reformative hell is infinitely preferable to an eternal one.

If people in heaven wouldn't object to killers and child molestors being there with them after repenting and accepting Jesus, is it so terrible a concept to have these same criminals undergo some kind of supernatural rehabiliation and then be released from damnation?

Certainly that has to be better than putting both Hitler and Ghandi in the same pit for ever, which is where they both are if christianity is true (although Hitler might be in heaven since he professed belief in God and Jesus - as far as I know, Ghandi was hindu.)

Hitler was a Catholic, and I highly doubt he repented for his sins or even could have if he had decades to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

Hitler was a Catholic, and I highly doubt he repented for his sins or even could have if he had decades to do so.

Considering Hitler likely had serious psychological problems, it could be, Hitler didn't think he could sin and everything he did was supposed to happen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Considering Hitler likely had serious psychological problems, it could be, Hitler didn't think he could sin and everything he did was supposed to happen.

That would be rather determinist.

 

[bhsmte]

That would be rather determinist.

Hitler often said, the numerous assignation attempts on him failed, because his destiny was to do what he wanted to do.

 

[Golden Yak]

Hitler was a Catholic, and I highly doubt he repented for his sins or even could have if he had decades to do so.

Kind've a tangent, but Hitler seemed to have discarded catholicism towards the end of his life, though he continued to speak of God and Jesus as Lord.

As for repentance - as far as I'm aware, it happens instantaneously when one has the correct spirit. He could literally have done so at the last second of his life, for all we know. It seems ridiculous to image a repenting person having a remorseful spirit, being truly sorry for his actions, dying in the midst of apologizing for them, and then being told 'oooh, sorry, you had two sins left you didn't quite get too, you gotta go to hell forever now'. What would the use of trying to get deathbed conversions be if that weren't the case?

There's also the question of whether or not repenting of sins covers actions one truly doesn't believe are sinful, and if willingness to repent for anything you've done wrong covers everything you've done wrong.

But the point was - what good does it really do to have Hitler still exist, somewhere, forever, eternally suffering for his wrong-doing? Especially since according to christian doctrine, plenty of his victims will be there right alongside him for being jews that didn't think Jesus was the son of God? Wouldn't it be better, more moral, to reform him into a genuinely good person, even if it takes like ten million years of hard spiritual rehabilitation?

It seems like having him suffer forever would be something that would appeal to a base, meaner nature of vengeful cruelty - the idea of watching anyone writhe for ten billion years certainly makes me feel a little uneasy, like it can't really be the right thing to do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

He committed suicide. That's a Catholic no no

 

[bhsmte]

He committed suicide. That's a Catholic no no

In 1943, the Army hired a group of renowned psychologists to examine all information available in regards to Hitler and come up with a psychological profile of him, for the purposes of trying to predict how he would react in certain situations.

The psychologists ended up nailing the analysis and predicted Hitler would never surrender and would kill himself before he could be captured.

 

[keith99]

There is a reason that suicide is sometimes called an unforgivable sin by Catholics. Because it is ones last act and it is then impossible to ask for forgiveness.

It is pretty well documented that Hitlers last act was suicide.

That pretty much eliminates repentance from a Catholic standpoint. Considering the reasons fo rhis suicide it pretty much eliminates repentance from any standpoint.

Of course one can change the statement to 'What if instead of suicide Hitler chose repentance'.

Kind've a tangent, but Hitler seemed to have discarded catholicism towards the end of his life, though he continued to speak of God and Jesus as Lord.

As for repentance - as far as I'm aware, it happens instantaneously when one has the correct spirit. He could literally have done so at the last second of his life, for all we know. It seems ridiculous to image a repenting person having a remorseful spirit, being truly sorry for his actions, dying in the midst of apologizing for them, and then being told 'oooh, sorry, you had two sins left you didn't quite get too, you gotta go to hell forever now'. What would the use of trying to get deathbed conversions be if that weren't the case?

There's also the question of whether or not repenting of sins covers actions one truly doesn't believe are sinful, and if willingness to repent for anything you've done wrong covers everything you've done wrong.

But the point was - what good does it really do to have Hitler still exist, somewhere, forever, eternally suffering for his wrong-doing? Especially since according to christian doctrine, plenty of his victims will be there right alongside him for being jews that didn't think Jesus was the son of God? Wouldn't it be better, more moral, to reform him into a genuinely good person, even if it takes like ten million years of hard spiritual rehabilitation?

It seems like having him suffer forever would be something that would appeal to a base, meaner nature of vengeful cruelty - the idea of watching anyone writhe for ten billion years certainly makes me feel a little uneasy, like it can't really be the right thing to do.

 

[Golden Yak]

He committed suicide. That's a Catholic no no

It is pretty well documented that Hitlers last act was suicide.

That pretty much eliminates repentance from a Catholic standpoint.

Really not my point, gang.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let's all collectively agree that any situation in which Hitler gets 0 punishment of any kind for his actions in any afterlife situation in which punishment is possible is unacceptable, at the very least.

 

[quatona]

Let's all collectively agree that any situation in which Hitler gets 0 punishment of any kind for his actions in any afterlife situation in which punishment is possible is unacceptable, at the very least.

Count me out.

 

[Albion]

Certainly that has to be better than putting both Hitler and Ghandi in the same pit for ever, which is where they both are if christianity is true (although Hitler might be in heaven since he professed belief in God and Jesus - as far as I know, Ghandi was hindu.)

The problem with such POVs is that they presume that God is vengeful or fickle. There's no reason to think that of him. If we take that out of the equation, we are then freed from the temptation to think God might be "evil."

But the idea is still viable that those who do not want to know the true God, having had the chance to be a believer in him, will go where they are at home. That would include Hitler and Gandhi. It would not be Heaven, for obvious reasons, and they would be unhappy there.

Why we would suppose that God does not force us to believe in him in this life but that he'd do so in the next life, is hard to make sense of. Yet, there are plenty of people for whom that's their basic answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem with such POVs is that they presume that God is vengeful or fickle. There's no reason to think that of him. If we take that out of the equation, we are then freed from the temptation to think God might be "evil."

But the idea is still viable that those who do not want to know the true God, having had the chance to be a believer in him, will go where they are at home. That would include Hitler and Gandhi. It would not be Heaven, for obvious reasons, and they would be unhappy there.

Why we would suppose that God does not force us to believe in him in this life but that he'd do so in the next life, is hard to make sense of. Yet, there are plenty of people for whom that's their basic answer.

I imagine they would happier in heaven than in hell, for crying out loud what logic is there in thinking anyone would be unhappy in heaven, or that such unhappiness would be related to belief?

 

[quatona]

The problem with such POVs is that they presume that God is vengeful or fickle. There's no reason to think that of him. If we take that out of the equation, we are then freed from the temptation to think God might be "evil."

But the idea is still viable that those who do not want to know the true God, having had the chance to be a believer in him, will go where they are at home. That would include Hitler and Gandhi. It would not be Heaven, for obvious reasons, and they would be unhappy there.

Hell as a place of happiness? Now how´s that for a new idea?

 

[Albion]

Hell as a place of happiness? Now how´s that for a new idea?

Unpersuasive, although there used to be Limbo and it was something like that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Unpersuasive, although there used to be Limbo and it was something like that.

Isn't pergatory, for the denominations that support it, a temporary transitional afterlife for people who weren't good or bad enough to go to heaven or hell immediately after death?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
But the idea is still viable that those who do not want to know the true God, having had the chance to be a believer in him, will go where they are at home. That would include Hitler and Gandhi. It would not be Heaven, for obvious reasons, and they would be unhappy there.
....

We don't know Hitler went to Hell, according to some Christian denominations, he is in heaven.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Unpersuasive, although there used to be Limbo and it was something like that.

How do you know Hell isn't the good place, and heaven the place of torture? How would we know if Yahweh is the deceiver, and Satan the good God?

It makes sense: Do people who worship a God who they know endorses slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 ) and genocide (Joshua 6: 20-21) so they can save their soul, deserve to have a wonderful afterlife?

Personally, I am far more impressed with people who stand by their principles, even if it means a negative outcome.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This question wasn't addressed to me, but it's an interesting one. To my mind, a temporary reformative hell is infinitely preferable to an eternal one.

If people in heaven wouldn't object to killers and child molestors being there with them after repenting and accepting Jesus, is it so terrible a concept to have these same criminals undergo some kind of supernatural rehabiliation and then be released from damnation?

Certainly that has to be better than putting both Hitler and Ghandi in the same pit for ever, which is where they both are if christianity is true (although Hitler might be in heaven since he professed belief in God and Jesus - as far as I know, Ghandi was hindu.)

In my own mind, I have similar thoughts.