The Problem of Hell

[Blackmarch]

I don't quite buy that. You are assuming here that "supreme happiness" must be one's ultimate objective. However, what if it is not? After all, it could be seen as an emotional form of hedonism to select this particular goal and to ignore all others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

sorry for butting in... But I have to agree at least somewhat with Eudaimonist's comment-

According to the bible a third of heaven was drawn away- individuals who would have a lot better understanding of God, christ and etc.. as well as knowledge of such.
Which would indicate either there can be mkore ulterior motives for an individual, or that mere (complete/solid) knowledge of God, Christ, and etc... isn't a guarantee.


(altho I think it would help an individual greatly)

 

[Vigilante]

I don't quite buy that. You are assuming here that "supreme happiness" must be one's ultimate objective. However, what if it is not? After all, it could be seen as an emotional form of hedonism to select this particular goal and to ignore all others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You're right, and I made a very poor choice of words. I'll try to clarify myself here.

Take a few of these examples:

1. You're watching the World Cup when your country scores the winning goal against its most heated rival. What follows? A state of happiness (euphoria for some!).
2. After nine months of building, you put the last finishing touches on the construction of your new home. What follows? A state of accomplishment.
3. Your boss accidentally left a pile of money on the table at work. Your coworkers opt to grab some before heading home, but you decide not to. Three days later it's discovered that there was a camera in the room, and it's made known to all that you were the only person who respected your boss's property. What follows? A state of justification.
4. For your birthday your friends pay for you to have a Swedish massage at an expensive spa. What follows? A state of subdued pleasure.

These are worthwhile ends to pursue. From all of them I abstract the notion of satisfaction for the individual involved. This is what I was trying to get at (however clumsily) in my last post. An overarching state of satisfaction is what I claim God wants, in the end, for all of us. But this is not enough.

Whereas satisfaction deals with what is and what has been, stimulation deals with what is and what will be (or might be). If on the eschatalogical New Earth I'm working on pioneering a method of interplanetary travel, I experience a state of stimulation. I'm enjoying what I'm doing, and I'm looking forward to the results promised by my efforts.

So we observe a continuum of time where Great Things continually engage those in union with God. This kind of lifestyle might well be called "flourishing," and in that sense meshes well, I think, with your own convictions about eudaimonia.

But still neither are satisfaction and stimulation enough by themselves. I think they must be a distinctly lucid kind of satisfaction and stimulation. The heroin addict is no doubt satisfied by his latest hit, but this kind of situation is characterized by poor health and addiction. It does not resemble human flourishing in the sense in which I speak of it.

So now the rub. I take it as an axiom that every biologically and psychologically healthy individual values most highly those processes which are thought to bring about a state of lucid satisfaction and stimulation, and all actions are more or less means toward that end. (Please note that I don't think this excludes self-sacrificing behavior, in which cases the satisfaction of the individual in question is best served by promoting the health or well-being of a loved one over him or herself.) If this is the case, and if it is understood by the individual that salvation is the most efficacious means toward that end, I cannot imagine anyone turning it down. They would, I think, simply have no motive to do so.

And I want to make a quick distinction about "understanding" as I've just mentioned it. What I refer to is a deep, personal kind of experiential understanding. This would be somewhere on the level of "understanding" that you want to be with your significant other (with whom you're in love for the sake of my argument) because she brings the most exhilarating sense of lucid satisfaction and stimulation to your life. This is in contrast to the merely dry, academic understanding where you "understand" what your significant other is about because you read, as it happens, her profile on eHarmony.com. If the former kind of understanding about Jesus is brought to bear on an individual, it seems virtually automatic that he or she would seek a relationship with him. And so much the more likely if union with God is a greater source of lucid satisfaction and stimulation than anyone's significant other has ever been. (On that level, if I thought that I had a deep, experiential understanding that Allah filled that role, I would convert to Islam. And if I lacked what I felt was a deep, experiential understanding of any god, I would be an atheist.)

I hope I made this intelligible.

sorry for butting in... But I have to agree at least somewhat with Eudaimonist's comment-

According to the bible a third of heaven was drawn away- individuals who would have a lot better understanding of God, christ and etc.. as well as knowledge of such.
Which would indicate either there can be mkore ulterior motives for an individual, or that mere (complete/solid) knowledge of God, Christ, and etc... isn't a guarantee.


(altho I think it would help an individual greatly)

Don't apologize! This is helpful.

I would answer your concern in two ways. First, if this event actually occurred I would claim one of the following:

1. Union with God is not the greatest source of lucid satisfaction and stimulation.
or
2. Those who rebelled from God thought, however mistakenly, that they could find a superior source of LSS elsewhere (perhaps in themselves, as the story goes).
or
3. Angels and fallen angels are beings so drastically different from us that we cannot anthropomorphize and transfer our virtually universal human desire for LSS to their value set.

I won't go too far out on a limb on this, but I think (2) is taught in the Bible. Insofar as this is true, one wonders how it could be that those caught up in the divine presence could be under that severe of an illusion (an illusion somewhat akin to my eHarmony illustration above)! But claiming that they were under that illusion (somehow!) doesn't seem incompatible with my own claim that they wouldn't have rebelled if they hadn't been under that illusion. (I'm aware that this is an a priori "way out," and as such is frustratingly untestable. Oh well.) It does seem pretty mystifying, though. Which brings me to the second way I would answer your concern...

Maybe it didn't happen, either in the manner in which the story is told, or even at all. After coming to the conclusion that the Old Testament's accounts of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel are untenable as etiologies (which seek to explain the origins of life and differing languages, respectively), I began to raise some questions. If these etiologies are inadequate to explain how things really are, then it may be cautiously inferred that perhaps the etiology of evil itself is also suspect to suspicion--after all, it's from the same portion of the same literary source, and it's not something just anyone can go "find out."

This is not to say that I don't believe in Satan or demons, because I do. I'm just not terribly convinced anymore that I know where they came from.

 

[griggs1947]

duplicate

 

[griggs1947]

Eudaimonia, as Michael Shermer in "Weird Things People Believe," in his essay on her , observes she was a cult leader, actually not the rationalist she should have been.Then there is Walker's 'The Ayn Rand Cult" that adumbrates on her failure to be so rational.
Yes, she upheld both rationalism and naturalism but she was insufficiently read in philosophy that she misundersood matters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Eudaimonia, as Michael Shermer in "Weird Things People Believe," in his essay on her , observes she was a cult leader, actually not the rationalist she should have been.Then there is Walker's 'The Ayn Rand Cult" that adumbrates on her failure to be so rational.

Why are you so cultish about Shermer and Walker? Why do they speak Absolute Truth for you, as if their viewpoints were the only possible side to the story allowed? You've only heard one side of the story.

Even Walker made the decision to ditch all the positive things he encountered in all those audio recordings of interviews with people who knew Ayn Rand, and just included the negative things (often taken out of context) in his published book. Don't you know a hatchet job when you read one? Or do you assume that anyone who is negative about Ayn Rand is unbiased?

I'll agree with them that there were people who had a cultish attitude towards Ayn Rand. However, I disagree that Ayn Rand was a "cult leader" any more than Sigmund Freud was a cult leader. (Read up on his life and career sometime.) Ayn Rand may have been an enthusiastic crusader for her cause, and perhaps overly moralistic at times, but she was certainly a rationalist.

I do not intend to discuss this subject with you any further because it's clear to me that you've made your judgment about her long ago and nothing I say will make any impression on you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thanks for the reply. You raise some good points.

An overarching state of satisfaction is what I claim God wants, in the end, for all of us.

I'd find this very odd indeed, and I don't mean desiring an overarching state of lucid (i.e. rationally-inspired) satisfaction for others or oneself. That is a benevolent wish. What I find odd is the desire for someone to treat this sort of satisfaction as the ultimate goal of their lives.

I would wish someone a self-directed life of growth and integrity as the overarching end, and treat satisfaction as a possible icing on the cake. Maybe that icing will be very satisfying if it is on a well-made cake, but the cake must be there first. Even if having that cake means having little icing through unfortunate circumstances, that is preferable to having icing on a poorly made cake.

I suppose it might seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think we must consider that when people make decisions they shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Someone will have a great interest in considering issues other than satisfaction when deciding the course of their lives. They will want to know that they are constructing good lives, and not merely satisfying ones (even if this is a lucid satisfaction).

Of course, here is where you chime in and say that if one accepts the Christian worldview, then one would naturally conclude that one would have such a life. At which time I concede your point.

So we observe a continuum of time where Great Things continually engage those in union with God. This kind of lifestyle might well be called "flourishing," and in that sense meshes well, I think, with your own convictions about eudaimonia.

Quite possibly. I simply find your treatment of the subject a little too weighted towards subjective experience. However, your view is certainly very benevolent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Vigilante]

Thanks for the reply. You raise some good points.

[...]

What I find odd is the desire for someone to treat this sort of satisfaction as the ultimate goal of their lives.

I would wish someone a self-directed life of growth and integrity as the overarching end, and treat satisfaction as a possible icing on the cake. Maybe that icing will be very satisfying if it is on a well-made cake, but the cake must be there first. Even if having that cake means having little icing through unfortunate circumstances, that is preferable to having icing on a poorly made cake.

From reading this, I don't think what we're getting at is terribly different, though you and I seem to be coming at it from different angles. My original claim...

An overarching state of satisfaction is what I claim God wants, in the end, for all of us.

...Was a reference to existence in heaven ("in the end"), as I think I was still speaking in the context of universal salvation at that point. With this in mind, seeking an end of integrity may be seen as a bit superfluous, as everyone in heaven (allegedly) already has impeccable integrity. So we were just on different pages there. With respect to "growth," we might understand this in terms of an individual's relational solidarity with both God and other individuals, and these alongside the attendant improvements in virtue that these processes would tend to bring about. I'm sure you would specify growth (including its nature and challenges) in a more Earthbound-specific sense, though. For my own part, I too would include growth and integrity as necessary ends in a pre-eschatalogical time frame, and I should have included growth in my post-eschatalogical analysis in any event. (One might propose that the kind of lucid stimulation of which I spoke would be the kind that would lead, generally speaking, to the kind of growth that God desires within us. But maybe I'm reaching for too much congruence.) Sorry for any confusion.

I suppose it might seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think we must consider that when people make decisions they shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Someone will have a great interest in considering issues other than satisfaction when deciding the course of their lives. They will want to know that they are constructing good lives, and not merely satisfying ones (even if this is a lucid satisfaction).

Here I think we might have been split again on the pre- vs. post-eschatalogical divide. Your notion of the construction of the "good life" as something to choose only makes sense in the face of an alternative choice for the "bad life" (or some other inferior choice--maybe the "wasted life" if we don't consider "wasted" synonymous with "bad"). But, of course, in heaven there is no such moral choice to be made. In the pre-eschatalogical sense in which you seem to be speaking I would certainly place a greater emphasis on "the good" as an end of primary importance. (In fact, with the potential for evil choices in this life, I would deemphasize the importance of satisfaction and stimulation, as the latter two often go hand-in-hand with evil.)

Of course, here is where you chime in and say that if one accepts the Christian worldview, then one would naturally conclude that one would have such a life. At which time I concede your point.

Not at all. Well, in the post-eschatalogical sense, at least, this would of course be true (and no one who felt convinced of both the existence of "heaven" as traditionally defined and their own qualification for entry would disagree that such a life is waiting for them there). But in general, not at all.

If we take the spiritual postulates of Christianity seriously, we wouldn't necessarily expect the newly-minted Christian's life to make a net improvement in lucid satisfaction & stimulation. We would expect, for the new Christian, that some aspects of his life (or some aspects of his life at certain points in time) to improve on account of God's work in and around him. But just as surely we would expect the Darkness to recognize a potential threat in this man's change of purpose, and on account of this we would expect that some other aspects of his life (or some other aspects of his life at certain points in time) to disintegrate or fall apart. Or perhaps a tug-of-war would occur in this or that area.

On the other hand, the individual's life may appear to be falling apart, but in fact it may be God purposing (or allowing, if we distinguish) disintegrative things to occur in order to bring about a more important element of growth. Telling the difference between this kind of ultimately-constructive deconstructionism and the outright hostile deconstructionism of the Darkness isn't always discernable, so in this sense life as a Christian can be dishearteningly frustrating (eg., "Is this for a purpose?", "Have I been abandoned?", "Am I being 'attacked'?").

To any person who asked, I would say that you stand no greater chance of feeling happier as a Christian than you do of feeling more miserable. So if you're aiming for a ticket to happiness without sacrifice, try a bucket of mint chocolate chip ice cream instead. And then reexamine your values and check back then. But do check back.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

Thanks for the input guys. I have yet to hear of a Christians opinion on the concept of hell.

Come on guys!

Hell is a state of mind. A concept. A metaphor. Of course, I'm not a biblical literalist either.

 

[PetraFan007]

GOD gives every soul He created, choices... & in this case
the choice: either to follow satan for eternity, punishing oneself in eternal torture;
OR
to *Accept GOD's creation-&-salvation* with its Soulful, Mindful & Youthful attendant blessings... eternally.

GOD/Christ did counsel each of us, to "Choose ye (wisely) this day, whom ye will serve..."
Joshua 24:15 as for me & my household we will serve GOD.

OK...let's bring this crazy freight train to a screeching halt.

We are all giving each other's ideas and opinions on what the bible/Jesus said about hell.

Let me ask you this:

Show me one verse in the bible, in context, that says God will torment unbelievers for all eternity?

 

[Penumbra]

The Orthodox view of hell intrigues me the most. Reading through this thread (that the poster above me resurrected ), one or two Orthodox members have described it. I've always found this as a rather dishonest attempt at reconciling love with torture.

Basically, the view is that everyone goes to "heaven" where God's love shines on everyone, but unbelievers and sinners and such somehow experience that love as excruciating, whether by some metaphysical mechanism or by having their own shortcomings eternally exposed to love.

This doesn't make sense to me at all, though. I've heard of tough love, of course, but if I knew that my love for someone was causing them pain and will cause them pain for the rest of eternity, then I'll back off. If God is loving, and is sustaining all of these people in his presence, which gives bliss to some and eternal torture to others, then he should be conscious that what he is doing is causing pain to some. At the very least, let them die already. Or, talk to them for goodness sake. Help them through their pain. This Orthodox view of God's loving shining eternally on people, giving them heaven or hell, is robotic in nature, as though God is either unconscious of the pain he is causing to some people, or is conscious but uncaring about it. If someone's love causes pain that never goes away, and they are conscious of this fact, then it is not love.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

OK...let's bring this crazy freight train to a screeching halt.

We are all giving each other's ideas and opinions on what the bible/Jesus said about hell.

Let me ask you this:

Show me one verse in the bible, in context, that says God will torment unbelievers for all eternity?

Does Revelation count, or no?

From Revelation 14:
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

(Not all Christians care what Revelation says, though. Some accept the book, others do not. And of course some accept it, but view it as metaphorical, so that even a rather blunt description like the one I posted is considered metaphorical for something else instead of believing what it says in print.)

-Lyn

 

[PetraFan007]

You do realize that this occurs on the earth, and only to a specific class of people? E.G. Those who have taken the mark of the beast? Of course, we know that there are those who already passed away who did not recieve the mark, so this can't be the lake of fire. Furthermore, it says "the smoke" rises forever, not their torment. Notice John is quoting Isaiah 34:10 verbatim with that phrase, which is figurative (just as almost every other symbolic thing in revelation) for it's eternal destruction. Thirdly, it's in the presence of the Lamb and the angels, which is contrary to the white throne judgment, where he casts you OUT of his presence which is the lake of fire (eternal seperation). Fourth, this is part of the winepress of the wrath of God, being poured out on the earth. I could go on, but as you can tell, I need some better biblical proof, in context of course.

 

[JGL53]

I think it interesting that, though orthodox Christianity has, for the most part, for two millenia promoted the idea of an eternal hell, no major Eastern Thought philosophy or religion Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism - teaches there is an eternal hell.

Just one more reason to eschew Christianity. I mean, you could still be a "liberal" Christian, but there still remains a taint - if you know what I mean.

 

[PetraFan007]

This is not a valid reason to eschew Christianity. This is just a stupid doctrine. Besides, no one else but Yeshua (Jesus) filled hundreds of messianic prophecies.

 

[JGL53]

This is not a valid reason to eschew Christianity...

Teaching there is an eternal hell is a ....heck of a good reason to eschew Christianity. Among others.

...This is just a stupid doctrine...

If you are speaking of eternal punishment then I agree.

Besides, no one else but Yeshua (Jesus) filled hundreds of messianic prophecies...

Says you. There is just as much evidence that Nostradamus was a prophet.

Uh, and that would be zero.

 

[PetraFan007]

Man, you crack me up. Thankfully, I'm informed on the truth, and believe in annihilation. Besides the point, there are hundreds of messianic prophecies in the old testament. This is a fact, even ask the Jews. Fact is, they (mostly) don't believe Yeshua was he, but I believe he is. For a good reason too.

324 Messianic Prophecies | Hope of Israel

324 to be exact

Teaching there is an eternal hell is a ....heck of a good reason to eschew Christianity. Among others.



If you are speaking of eternal punishment then I agree.



Says you. There is just as much evidence that Nostradamus was a prophet.

Uh, and that would be zero.

 

[JGL53]

... Man, you crack me up....

Really? In comparison, you strike me as a very sad clown.

...Thankfully, I'm informed on the truth,...

And you suffer from NPD? Gee, that is doubly sad.

...324 Messianic Prophecies | Hope of Israel

324 to be exact...

The first so-called fulfilled prophecy is a total joke.

I didn't bother with the other 323.

You need to get a hobby, dude. Something other than arguing religion on the internet. You are the pits at that. LOL.

 

[neocon]

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

nah they will be fine with Justice being served.

 

[griggs1947]

PetraFan007, you are ignoring that Christians read onto those prophecies what is not there; what is there refers to other matters and other times. Furthermore, some prophecies fail, some come after the fact and some generalize so much , like Nostradamus's, that they refer to anything one wants- a Rorshack-like phenomenon. See Tim Callahan's " Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?."
And he or his writers made him try to fulfill those prophecies!
Apocalypse reveals the solipsism of that John! Some Christians continue to calculate when its supposed reality will happen, and ever events confound them.
Why accept his Resurrection anymore than the alleged resuscitations of Jim Jones or Oral Roberts? Witnesses attest them,too.

 

[Penumbra]

Man, you crack me up. Thankfully, I'm informed on the truth, and believe in annihilation. Besides the point, there are hundreds of messianic prophecies in the old testament. This is a fact, even ask the Jews. Fact is, they (mostly) don't believe Yeshua was he, but I believe he is. For a good reason too.

324 Messianic Prophecies | Hope of Israel

324 to be exact

The issue is that most of those cannot be confirmed.

For instance, it says he's supposed to be born of a virgin, and then it's written that he's born of a virgin, but how does anyone know whether he's born of a virgin?

His genealogy is also a prophecy and claimed to be fulfilled, but how did they verify genealogy back then?

To me it's all hindsight. Jews don't even agree with how most of those prophecies are interpreted by Christians; Christians tell Jews how to interpret their scriptures. Not to mention, Jesus and the people who wrote about him had access to those prophecies and yet still didn't complete them all, and has to come back a second time to complete them (and that was never mentioned in the prophecies).