What's your philosophy for Hell? Hell only?

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

!

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

EDIT: This is an example of exactly the kind of comment I am looking for:

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

 

[Davian]

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Hell is a place I'm not going, or should anyone else want to.

I have the Shame and Honor view of Hell, Torture in hell?

which makes sense. no one can complain about Hell being eternal, everyone should repent to Jesus Christ. I have and I'm already experiencing Heaven with The Lord Jesus Christ, through the good and bad times.

 

[elephunky]

Hell seems to be an interesting concept, the idea of what hell actually is seems to be varied among different faith groups and denomination.

I dont imagine hell to literally have fire. I see it more as an opposite to the idea of heaven. I imagine hell to be a place of solitary confinement where as in heaven I imagine that you get to interact with other beings of different types after you have learnt your lessons (and reincarnated if you had to).

 

[Paradoxum]

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

!

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

Well I don't think there is a hell, and if there is one I don't know what it is like.

Hell is a place I'm not going, or should anyone else want to.

I have the Shame and Honor view of Hell, Torture in hell?

which makes sense. no one can complain about Hell being eternal, everyone should repent to Jesus Christ. I have and I'm already experiencing Heaven with The Lord Jesus Christ, through the good and bad times.

Have you repented to the ice gods?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Well I don't think there is a hell,

Where's your proof? because I have proof that it's real, what you think isn't relevant as what is known, and it's known by proof and evidence that Hell is real and no one wants to go there.

also pascals wager disproves your excuses, taking that risk shows a problem

and if there is one I don't know what it is like.

Eternal shame and dishonor.

 

[elephunky]

Where's your proof? because I have proof that it's real, what you think isn't relevant as what is known, and it's known by proof and evidence that Hell is real and no one wants to go there.

Don't start this again. Unless you can show hell or have some kind of scientific research to back it up, you really dont have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[Davian]

Well I don't think there is a hell, and if there is one I don't know what it is like.

Have you repented to the ice gods?

I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think "hell" is more than a concept used to indoctrinate non-believers.

However, for those that do believe, perhaps they should prepare for the eventuality that they end up in an alternate version, say, from one of the polytheistic or eastern religions. Pascal's wager, and all that.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think "hell" is more than a concept used to indoctrinate non-believers.

That's like saying Jail is just used to stop criminals, of course God uses Hell to warn people, for their own good because if you think about it Hell does exist, every bad thing you do deserves eternal punishment.

would you agree that a murderer deserves life in prison or the death penalty?

 

[Paradoxum]

Where's your proof?

I don't have proof. I don't have proof Narnia doesn't exist either.

because I have proof that it's real, what you think isn't relevant as what is known, and it's known by proof and evidence that Hell is real and no one wants to go there.

What's your proof?

also pascals wager disproves your excuses, taking that risk shows a problem

You know, pascals wager isn't a serious theological argument. It can make you believe anything. I could believe in Islam or any ideology that threatens me on that basis.

Eternal shame and dishonor.

They don't seem so bad.

I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think "hell" is more than a concept used to indoctrinate non-believers.

However, for those that do believe, perhaps they should prepare for the eventuality that they end up in an alternate version, say, from one of the polytheistic or eastern religions. Pascal's wager, and all that.

Silly people.

 

[Davian]

That's like saying Jail is just used to stop criminals, of course God uses Hell to warn people, for their own good because if you think about it Hell does exist, every bad thing you do deserves eternal punishment.

<snip off topic question>

As an igtheist, I do not think "hell" is more than a concept used to indoctrinate non-believers.

Tell me, because of Pascal's wager, are you prepared for all of those other "hells"? After all, you are a non-believer in those religions.

 

[keith99]

I'm going to go with Dante's ideas that the punishment fits the crime.

I think it was in Niven and Pournelle's "Inferno" where there was a particualrly interesting variation on the theme. I thing eh basic was from Dante. There were 2 groups each rolling a huge rock to try to crush the other side. The hoarders and the wasters. But in the middle was a man who constantly got run over by both. He bought a huge number of books, but had no money left to store them properly so he put them in a barn where they were ruined. Both a hoarder and a waster.


On the theme of mutual discomfort I fear it there is a God and he has taken an interest in Hell or if Satan really is his servant in some ways then I may be doomed to provide the torment to some (some not all, there are some very stark exceptions) of the chirstians on this board for eternity. And they will be providing the torment for me.

If this comes to pass I ask those I refered to as stark exceptions to see if they can be allowed to come by and deliver a glass ot 2 of cold water for me!

That last is a fitting present as my backup plan in case I'm wrong and there is a Heaven and a Hell is to have on occasion provided a drink of cold water to a thirsty child.

 

[Ronald]

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

I wrote a few chapters in my book about this subject. Here are a couple commentaries from this forum.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7684649-2/#post61335818

http://www.christianforums.com/t7649173-54/#post60513243

 

[Gottservant]

I'm going to go with Dante's ideas that the punishment fits the crime.

[...]

If this comes to pass I ask those I refered to as stark exceptions to see if they can be allowed to come by and deliver a glass ot 2 of cold water for me!

That last is a fitting present as my backup plan in case I'm wrong and there is a Heaven and a Hell is to have on occasion provided a drink of cold water to a thirsty child.

Thanks for a considered reply, it meant something significant.

I would go with the "someone will bring a cup of water" too, but I know from Jesus in Luke 16:22 that there is a divide between Heaven and Hell that prevents this.

The "I have given a cup of water" idea is much better, as that basically gets you out of Hell.

As I write this, I am finding it very hard to type properly, which is unusual for me - but partly it is because I am trying a lot harder not to make mistakes.

I'm not sure if I have heard enough serious answers to really justify offering my own suggestion, but I think it would go along the lines of "If only I were the Devil"!

 

[Gottservant]

I wrote a few chapters in my book about this subject. Here are a couple commentaries from this forum.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7684649-2/#post61335818

http://www.christianforums.com/t7649173-54/#post60513243

Thanks for the links, I have been excited already.

EDIT: Wow, head on approach there. Discernment with respect to Hell is definitely key. However, I would suggest that the length of Hell, depends on the faith. Allow me to explain.

Hell for Hell's sake is quite quick... quick. You get there and you are suffering, but you went there for that in the first place. So immediately your suffering is at least doubly as great. Few people wait for double Hell.

Hell for Earth's sake on the other hand... is... quite... slow... quite, quite slow. You get there and you are suffering, but you are not sure if you want to be there, not sure if you want double Hell straight away. Delay double Hell and almost anyone will bend to your will.

So you see, there is a gradient. In turn (we are talking about Hell here, it is not for chumps) ending up in Hell for the wrong reasons can mean different things, but essentially it turns out to be the same thing. For example, you think you are going to Heaven, but you also think you are my friend and even though you like philosophy, you have no philosophy for Hell, you don't even want to talk about it... well.... you are going to Hell, as far as I am concerned, the very least you could have done was change the subject! But what happens when you get there? Not so complicated really, you thought there was a Heaven, you didn't choose that, you thought you were my friend, but it didn't mean anything, that's Hell on Earth, you like the tolerability of Philosophical Hell, you don't need to think about absolutely everything you say "do you"? But not thinking about what you say, you still don't want to talk to someone who is as vulnerable as you are. Consequence? Hell on Earth becomes Earth in Hell for Hell's sake and you languish for what seems to you like eternity (a tortuous but heavenly length of time) never knowing why I pester you about talking to me, but always suspecting that I do it to make your Hell more Hell for you, because that's what you wanted anyway and if I am not doing that, you might just as well make my Hell more Hell for me. (and what is Hell, after all, if you can't make Hell more Hell for someone?)

What a read, eh? I think this is in part why people don't want to think about it. I'm interested to know if you buy into the "choices prolong suffering idea". But you may just want to reply with a ready made argument about how... obsessing over consequences actually detracts from what a Philosophy of Hell makes you capable of or some such thing! (the Devil talking to you now, is he? he will try! (in Hell) I tell him "he doesn't understand my philosophy"!)

 

[SavedByChrist94]

As an igtheist, I do not think "hell" is more than a concept used to indoctrinate non-believers.

Nope, that is disproven. Hell is real and God uses Hell to warn people. Hell serves no interest to indoctrinate and would actually be a Criteria Of Disimilarity has humans do not like Hell or the even the idea of it. for example, I'd hate to warn people of Hell, if I was trying to indoctrinate anyone I wouldn't even mention Hell as Hell is scary and to be feared of, but since I know Hell is real, and wouldn't want anyone except satan to be there, I warn "non-believers" of it.

your argument fails and actually proves that God exists. Actually we'll use this to prove God exists,

1, If one were trying to indoctrinate anyone they would not use Hell as that is a Criteria of Disimlarity, meaning serves no ones interest.

2, Since they had no reason to do so, Hell is therefore Real and not used as an indoctrination but is a reality.

3, Therefore God exists.

Also punishment for sins is eternal, God exists therefore Hell is real, which follows The Objective Facts of Jesus Christ making Christianity The Objective Truth.

Tell me, because of Pascal's wager, are you prepared for all of those other "hells"? After all, you are a non-believer in those religions.

Pascals wager is #1 unnecessary, the reason I used it on you is so you are void of excuses, and #2 The Only Truth is Christianity, as God would make Himself most evident and everything else null and void, and Christianity by Scripture Alone proves itself true, so under Pascals Wager you're doomed to Accept Jesus Christ.


Also, Snip, On Topic question pertaining to The Reality of Hell, do you think a murderer deserves life in prison/the death penalty for their crime(s)?

 

[Skavau]

also pascals wager disproves your excuses, taking that risk shows a problem

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

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

 

[Skavau]

That's like saying Jail is just used to stop criminals, of course God uses Hell to warn people, for their own good because if you think about it Hell does exist, every bad thing you do deserves eternal punishment.

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

would you agree that a murderer deserves life in prison or the death penalty?

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

 

[Davian]

Nope, that is disproven. Hell is real and God uses Hell to warn people. Hell serves no interest to indoctrinate and would actually be a Criteria Of Disimilarity has humans do not like Hell or the even the idea of it. for example, I'd hate to warn people of Hell, if I was trying to indoctrinate anyone I wouldn't even mention Hell as Hell is scary and to be feared of, but since I know Hell is real, and wouldn't want anyone except satan to be there, I warn "non-believers" of it.

your argument fails and actually proves that God exists. Actually we'll use this to prove God exists,

1, If one were trying to indoctrinate anyone they would not use Hell as that is a Criteria of Disimlarity, meaning serves no ones interest.

2, Since they had no reason to do so, Hell is therefore Real and not used as an indoctrination but is a reality.

3, Therefore God exists.

Also punishment for sins is eternal, God exists therefore Hell is real, which follows The Objective Facts of Jesus Christ making Christianity The Objective Truth.

... in your opinion.

Pascals wager is #1 unnecessary, the reason I used it on you is so you are void of excuses, and #2 The Only Truth is Christianity, as God would make Himself most evident and everything else null and void, and Christianity by Scripture Alone proves itself true, so under Pascals Wager you're doomed to Accept Jesus Christ.
<snip>

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

 

[Skavau]

Nope, that is disproven. Hell is real and God uses Hell to warn people.

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

Hell serves no interest to indoctrinate and would actually be a Criteria Of Disimilarity has humans do not like Hell or the even the idea of it.

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

for example, I'd hate to warn people of Hell, if I was trying to indoctrinate anyone I wouldn't even mention Hell as Hell is scary and to be feared of, but since I know Hell is real, and wouldn't want anyone except satan to be there, I warn "non-believers" of it.

But you are mentioning it. You're mentioning it as the consequence of not believing in Christianity. That's the point. It is used as a threat by passive aggressive evangelicals towards people who won't believe.

your argument fails and actually proves that God exists. Actually we'll use this to prove God exists,

1, If one were trying to indoctrinate anyone they would not use Hell as that is a Criteria of Disimlarity, meaning serves no ones interest.

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

2, Since they had no reason to do so, Hell is therefore Real and not used as an indoctrination but is a reality.

Wat

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

3, Therefore God exists.

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

Also punishment for sins is eternal, God exists therefore Hell is real, which follows The Objective Facts of Jesus Christ making Christianity The Objective Truth.

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

Pascals wager is #1 unnecessary, the reason I used it on you is so you are void of excuses,

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

Also, no-one is giving "excuses". We do not answer to you, nor a God that we don't believe in. We give reasons at our will and time regardless of whether or not you approve.

and #2 The Only Truth is Christianity, as God would make Himself most evident and everything else null and void, and Christianity by Scripture Alone proves itself true, so under Pascals Wager you're doomed to Accept Jesus Christ.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Pascal's Wager has to take into account all options or none at all. Otherwise it is useless as a tool to convert people on common ground.