|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is hell really that important?
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am kinda curious, EE, if you can think of a way for an atheist to be afraid of hell without being irrational.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am kinda curious, EE, if you can think of a way for an atheist to be afraid of hell without being irrational.
I'm afraid of hell. I'm afraid of it because of what paying attention to such a monstrous notion does to the consciences of those who believe in it. I don't believe that hell is real. But then I don't believe that this five pound note in my pocket to have any inherent value either. I also believe that if you believe it to be real then it is a factor I need to take into account when dealing with you.
Yes, I believe hell to be important as an atheist. I believe it to say something about the nature of the god you worship, and the so-called good news you have for me in the gospel. In short, condemning someone to be tortured eternally is quite literally the greatest evil possible (and killing people while they are in a state of grace is a perfectly rational response if those are the rules - another problem).
So yes, hell is that important. If you believe in it the foundation of your morality is upon a being that treats people in ways that make Guantanamo Bay or even Auschwicz look like a family outing. And you are telling me that this is good, meaning that your cosmology is not just evil, returning disprortionate bad for anything, but you worship that evil and call it good.
So yes, the attempt to pervert justice by calling hell just is important.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My apologies; I was thinking of all that is known about the composition of everything, both in the universe and in the tiniest particle. When tried and tested knowledge of such things is available, and I see no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this info, then where or what is hell?
Hell is not supposed to be a physical place in this world, and apart from religious folklore such a claim has never been part of Christianity. Hence this is basically like saying that Paris does not exist, because you cannot find it anywhere in the UK. It never was supposed to be found in the UK.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
People used to think that God and heaven were 'up there' and raise their eyes to the skies, but those with access to the 'factual knowledge' I am referring to would not do that nowadays, would they?
They would be rather dumb if they stopped doing this, in fact. Because we are embodied beings and our minds express themselves in our bodies, and what out bodies do impacts our minds. Take a note for example of a greeting expressing respect and/or submissiveness, it invariably results in the person performing the greeting making themselves smaller while averting the eyes: the bow, the curtsey, the kowtow, the prostration, ... Similarly, to raise our gaze to the heavens, i.e., to look up and hold that position, is an embodiment of seeking out a "higher power". Quite possibly so because we learn as children to listen to out parents, whose voices come from above our heads. But it does not matter why we have this bodily association, we do have it, and hence raising our face up to the sky is not proof for some stupid belief that God is in lower orbit around the earth. Rather it is showing in the body what is in the mind, and moving the mind by the actions of the body. It is an eminently practical usage of psychosomatic effects.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ah, yes, fair question! Yes, of course, the idea of hell has had, and still has, a strong place in the reality that is human thought, but hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
Sure. And?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am kinda curious, EE, if you can think of a way for an atheist to be afraid of hell without being irrational.
I'm afraid of hell. I'm afraid of it because of what paying attention to such a monstrous notion does to the consciences of those who believe in it. I don't believe that hell is real. But then I don't believe that this five pound note in my pocket to have any inherent value either. I also believe that if you believe it to be real then it is a factor I need to take into account when dealing with you.
Yes, I believe hell to be important as an atheist. I believe it to say something about the nature of the god you worship, and the so-called good news you have for me in the gospel. In short, condemning someone to be tortured eternally is quite literally the greatest evil possible (and killing people while they are in a state of grace is a perfectly rational response if those are the rules - another problem).
So yes, hell is that important. If you believe in it the foundation of your morality is upon a being that treats people in ways that make Guantanamo Bay or even Auschwicz look like a family outing. And you are telling me that this is good, meaning that your cosmology is not just evil, returning disprortionate bad for anything, but you worship that evil and call it good.
So yes, the attempt to pervert justice by calling hell just is important.
This is all irrelevent, since we are talking about using hell as a threat to get people to believe, and you just want to talk about why people are awful for believing something you don't.
Just out of morbid curiousity, though, what happens to the conscience of a person who believes in hell? Be specific now, and substantiate.
[ 11. October 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by IngoB:
"Do X, and I will make you regret the day you were born. Do Y, and I will blow your mind with pleasures beyond your imagination. Of course, if you grow to really love me, then you will do Y and avoid X because of me, rather than because of what you get out of it. But I will take what I can get from you in the meantime..."
Orgasm or death beats cake or death by a mile. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So yes, hell is that important. If you believe in it the foundation of your morality is upon a being that treats people in ways that make Guantanamo Bay or even Auschwicz look like a family outing. And you are telling me that this is good, meaning that your cosmology is not just evil, returning disprortionate bad for anything, but you worship that evil and call it good.
So does the existence of Christians like the one I quoted in the OP, or like me and several others who don't believe in hell as a place of eternal torment, make any difference to you? As in, does it make you consider Christianity at all?
I have heard many atheists say, as you do, that belief in Hell is a main reason for not wanting to worship a God that would send people to such a place.
However I wonder if these same people just consider it one of many reasons not to be a Christian, rather than as "the" reason. There are many Christian churches that don't teach or don't require members to believe in hell as a place of eternal physical torment for unbelievers.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am not entirely sure that "I don't believe in this because it's immoral" is a strictly rational argument.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Seems more an argument for God being evil than for him not existing.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
This is all irrelevent, since we are talking about using hell as a threat to get people to believe, and you just want to talk about why people are awful for believing something you don't.
Just out of morbid curiousity, though, what happens to the conscience of a person who believes in hell? Be specific now, and substantiate.
What happens to the conscience of a person who believes in hell? They've added something more important to the calculus than how you treat other people and the world. How you stand in relation to God. The concept of justice is twisted because the notion of justice is perverted by the presence of hell.
In short there's dangerous garbage going into any moral reasoning. What happens after that varies. It varies from "Kill them all, God will know his own" and the auto-da-fe (a logical consequence of God and Hell) to "We must do good to be right with God" to "Lying for Jesus" to not a hell of a lot of difference. However it is not the only factor in how people behave. It merely is an enabling factor to allow people to show their darker sides and claim them to be good if that is something they wish to do.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So does the existence of Christians like the one I quoted in the OP, or like me and several others who don't believe in hell as a place of eternal torment, make any difference to you? As in, does it make you consider Christianity at all?
It makes me consider their forms of Christianity may be morally benevolent rather than morally toxic. Christians who do not believe in hell aren't likely to end up at certain positions they claim to be moral.
quote:
I have heard many atheists say, as you do, that belief in Hell is a main reason for not wanting to worship a God that would send people to such a place.
I don't say that at all. The main reason I do not worship God is that I do not believe that God exists. And there is no point worshipping something fictional, whether God or money.
What I am saying is that if I believed that such a God existed and that hell was real I would have two choices. To worship God out of pure naked self interest or to become a Satanist because there is literally no being imaginable that is more evil than the one who sets up the rules that has people tortured for ever and then passes it off as "justice".
In short the presence of hell in a set of Christian beliefs has no bearing at all on whether I consider Christianity to be true. It does, however, have a bearing on how I consider messages from people who believe in it. And if I'm automatically going to treat any moral message from you as corrupt because you're so tangled that you don't see eternal torment as evil and incompatable with a benevolent overlord then I'm going to take any "Good News" you have to offer that involves this with a pinch of salt.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The factual knowledge is as follows:
1. The reality of moral conscience.
2. The reality of the validity of morality, which cannot be denied, given that 80-90%+ of our daily news concerns moral issues of one kind or another.
3. The reality of the concept of justice, which can never be eradicated from the human psyche.
Yes, but the 'psyche' is another word for our personalities, partly controlled by genes and about which knowledge increases daily. The psyche is where it originated and where it remains. The ideas developed throughout our evolution and were evidently successful survival traits. I appreciate the fact that other species exhibit what appear to be altruistic behaviours, but these have not evolved since humans are the only ones who were able to articulate them.
quote:
4. While this may not count as a 'fact' for atheists, it cannot be denied that some people have very definite experiences of what they believe is 'God', which involves a strong conviction of sin.
We all have an enormous range of experiences, but it's the interpretation of these experiences which makes the difference. Interpretation depends on our surroundings, our upbringing and the words, ideas and beliefs of other people. When I was young, I had an experience of talking to God, but later of course realised that this was all my imagination, especially as my father was always sure that he and God had regular chats!
quote:
I am one such person. An atheist may think I am deluded, but in no way can he prove that, because he cannot prove that consciousness is nothing more than brain function.
Yes, but do you think that equal weight should be given to both points of view? I'd say that the factual information we have puts the probability ofcorrect interpretation very much on the side of the atheist.
quote:
5. The fact of the behaviour of billions of religious people throughout history (the vast majority of the human race) seeking to appease whatever they regard as God / god / the gods / the spirits / the ancestors etc, which testifies to an awareness of something undesirable after death directly relating to moral behaviour peformed on this side of the grave. Atheists can dismiss this in purely naturalistic terms, but only by resorting to special pleading.
The atheists I know don't dismiss' this, but would emphasise the way humans have accumulated knowledge of thoughts, experiences, observations andfound which ones stand up to scrutiny. When there was a lack of understanding of natural 'laws' , people invented stories and the threat of unpleasantness that might follow 'bad' behaviour might well have served as a curb, but I think that will continue to change with the increase in testable, measurable knowledge.
quote:
I think that's enough to be getting on with...
I'm afraid that's definitely not asgood as my lost response! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Ah well, that's the way life is, isn't it?!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Yes, I believe hell to be important as an atheist. I believe it to say something about the nature of the god you worship, and the so-called good news you have for me in the gospel. In short, condemning someone to be tortured eternally is quite literally the greatest evil possible (and killing people while they are in a state of grace is a perfectly rational response if those are the rules - another problem).
Let us suppose that God exists (I know he does, but let me propose this as an argument), and that he is absolute love, and nothing but love. This love is the most powerful 'force' in the whole of reality.
Now, what happens when anti-love (aka evil) comes into contact with love? Doesn't love destroy anti-love? Now suppose someone chooses to be utterly committed to anti-love, and builds his whole life on it. He is then exposed to the full force of love. What will happen to this person who refuses to give up his anti-love? Will this experience of absolute love be comfortable for him?
Absolutely not.
He will be in torment.
It is precisely because God is love, that he is also 'hell' towards those who are unrepentantly committed to anti-love.
The only people who cannot - and will not - understand this, are those who have an amoral view of love, and who have deluded themselves into thinking that anyone - even the most depraved - will happily and joyfully embrace the love of God.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seems more an argument for God being evil than for him not existing.
If you are trying to tell me that God is both good and condemns people to hell* then you are feeding me a line of obvious nonsense - those two are completely incompatable. Whether or not God exists, the conception of God you are trying to convince me exists is clearly incorrect.
* Or set up a system by which people are condemned to hell. Same difference.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let us suppose that God exists (I know he does, but let me propose this as an argument), and that he is absolute love, and nothing but love. This love is the most powerful 'force' in the whole of reality.
Now, what happens when anti-love (aka evil) comes into contact with love? Doesn't love destroy anti-love? Now suppose someone chooses to be utterly committed to anti-love, and builds his whole life on it.
Then they are inhumanly perfect and obviously not a real person or even a person that is possible. Utter commitment to anything is beyond the realms of any living being - we are all of us imperfect.
If, to justify something, you need to argue that people do things that are impossible for people to do then your argument is self-refuting.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell? Please give the facts, and the chain of reasoning.
Having no evidence of anyone, either personally, or from any trustworthy and testable source who has after dying, been to and returned from hell, I think that I am fairly safe here in passing the burden of proof to you!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
Wait for it...
And of course it's too late to refer to this in my post, which I had intended to do!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell? Please give the facts, and the chain of reasoning.
Having no evidence of anyone, either personally, or from any trustworthy and testable source who has after dying, been to and returned from hell, I think that I am fairly safe here in passing the burden of proof to you!
You're not safe at all in passing the burden of proof; you're dodging the question. You are the one who said:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it utterly astounding that in this day and age, with the factual knowledge available, that anyone can entertain the idea that there is such a state or place as hell which spirits/souls can be transferred to after death.
You were asked what factual knowledge you refer to. The burden remains on you to back your assertion up.
Lack of proof that Hell does exist is not proof that Hell does not exist.
[ 11. October 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I think those of us who believe in an after-life think of it as being in 'another dimension'.
And would you agree that this new thinking is because factual knowledge has replaced false knowledge, and because sci-fi has taken up-to-date facts and added a bit of imagination?
quote:
I can understand the logic of a purely materialist view of the universe, although it is not my view. But do 'materialists-only' folk seriously think that people with a religious faith are incapable of holding parallel views in tension together?
No, it is clear that many people do hold the two thoughts together, but if I tried to do so, I would find it quite impossible to suspend my disbelief in order to believe in any God, spirit or invisible place.
quote:
Science tells us how. It cannot tell us why.
Why do you think there has to be a 'why'?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
Neither does God. Neither does God have a definite place in the universe.
Well, I think I'll just say QED!
The things you mention aare the humanlycreated ideas, which could easily have developed from superstitions and conjectures to try and explain natural phenomena.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I think those of us who believe in an after-life think of it as being in 'another dimension'.
And would you agree that this new thinking is because factual knowledge has replaced false knowledge, and because sci-fi has taken up-to-date facts and added a bit of imagination?
I'm not Laurelin, but I would not agree that it is "new thinking."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
Neither does God. Neither does God have a definite place in the universe.
Well, I think I'll just say QED!
The things you mention aare the humanlycreated ideas, which could easily have developed from superstitions and conjectures to try and explain natural phenomena.
And you know this with certainty how?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
SusanDoris:
Human consciousness cannot be tested or measured by the scientific method. Does consciousness therefore not exist?
Yes, that is a tricky question, but maybe if we had come up with a different label for what we have labelled consciousness, it might have been easier to define. The exact answer won't be available for many years yet, I know, but if it turns out not to need a living animal to be involved, then I'd eat my hat if I happened to be still living!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
Wait for it...
And of course it's too late to refer to this in my post, which I had intended to do!
Oh there is plenty of proof for the existence of Hell. Look at all the people who believe in Hell. The Bible teaches there is a Hell. The Church teaches there is a Hell. Other religions teach the existence of something akin to Hell.
Plenty of evidence...
What kind did you have in mind?
Oh...let's just cut to the chase.
Logical positivism is still a load self-refuting nonsense.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
Why do you think there has to be a 'why'?
Because the asking of this question is part of something called 'reality' - you know, that thing that atheists keep appealing to!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Then they are inhumanly perfect and obviously not a real person or even a person that is possible. Utter commitment to anything is beyond the realms of any living being - we are all of us imperfect. If, to justify something, you need to argue that people do things that are impossible for people to do then your argument is self-refuting.
Quite so, and while I usually think that you lack a measured approach to things Christian (not to speak of things Catholic), you are not wrong in this case in complaining about the evasiveness of many responses. In particular, the theory that people burn in hell just because that is how they experience the "love of God" is weird (really, experiencing love tortures them? how, practically speaking?) and in the end does little to counter the moral argument. After all, God should know their suffering as much as they do (being omniscient) and certainly could end their suffering by simply ending their existence (being omnipotent), and by what argument would that be "less loving" in a human sense?
However, I find it interesting that your paragraph above certainly suggests part of a more suitable answer. As you have noted, it is non-human to be really perfect, and that we cannot even really understand how one can be a person and perfect. Yet God is perfect. So it is clear that God is non-human. And indeed, while God is considered as a Person by analogy, He certainly is not a person in remotely the same manner as you and me according to traditional theology. Let that sink in for a bit. Just how many claims are you going to make about a non-human "quasi-Person" based on human morality and human personal understandings? Of course you can say "if God were a good human person, He could not possibly be doing this". But since the premise is very much not the case, what meaning has the conclusion?
There are quite a number of other things to consider here, which are being ignored usually. For example, that we will be dead. That seems like a somewhat obvious point to make, but de facto people are discussing this as if we will be alive in exactly the same way that we are now. That however is not really a justifiable assumption. It is, for example, entirely impossible to torture any of us eternally. Just as it is entirely impossible to feed any of us popcorn eternally. We are not eternity-compatible beings at the moment. We are probably not even endless-time-compatible beings at the moment. So we will all really have to be very, very different after our deaths to be in any sense "eternal". If we are going to be so very, very different as to make eternal or endless-time popcorn munching a thinkable activity for us, then how can you be sure that eternal punishment would be inappropriate for these strange beings that we will become after death? Life after death is not going to be just this life multiplied endlessly.
Another thing to consider is that morality is in the traditional picture just a reflection of what people are. A good earthworm digs holes through the earth to consume plant material, a good human does not steal from others. The difference between morality and what we could call "proper function" in animals is simply the level of control. The earthworm becomes a bad earthworm typically by becoming sick or old, i.e., it stops functioning properly based on external influences (or internal ones operating at a physiology level below these functions). Whereas humans can decide to function inappropriately, they have a cognitive ability to misdirect their behaviour. So what translates across different categories of things here is the concept of proper function, not morality as such. We consider it absurd to put a chicken on trial for being immoral. But we are entirely happy to say that this is a "bad" chicken because it does not lay any eggs. Something is wrong with that chicken. And something is wrong with us when we steal. The dysfunction is common, how it comes about is not. Likewise, we should not really ask if God is immoral. He is in a totally different category of being, there is no reason to expect that that would work. But we can probably ask whether God is dysfunctional, whether He is not as God should be. Well then, what must God as God be like? As it turns out, what God fundamentally must do to be God according to the Christian (theological) tradition is to exist. That's it, really. That's the essence of God, Being. This gives, as I'm sure you can see, rather little purchase for moral complaints about God. The only way God could theoretically be a "bad" God is by not existing.
Now, it is admittedly rather interesting to see how these contemplations about a rather strange entity "God" fit together with the God reported in the OT, and the God become man in the NT. Rather unsurprisingly, you will not quite get the huggy-bear god out of this that many Christians cuddle up with at night. Neither will you get simplistic but supposedly inspiring answers like removing hell altogether, or God frying the sinners with his love. Rather you will get the weird but wonderful world of traditional Western theology, where evil has no being, God's love is not an emotion, etc. It has to me the ring of truth.
But since you believe none of this anyway, I can boil it down for you somewhat differently. If tomorrow a miniature black hole slams into the sun, and the resulting catastrophic solar explosion torches all life clean off earth, would you say that the universe has done a great evil? Not really really, right? That just is how the universe happens to be. But if instead tomorrow you watch a glorious sunset, your girlfriend in your arm, and a beautiful bottle of wine to share, is that meaningless nothing? Not really really, right? You are having a good time. Now, what I consider as God - and what in my opinion traditional Christianity proposes as God - is very close to those basic experiences and thoughts. The difference is just that we think that Somebody means this. And that we hope that ultimately sunset, girlfriend and wine win over deadly solar flares. But not in a soppy manner, that possibility was firmly crossed out...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Then they are inhumanly perfect and obviously not a real person or even a person that is possible. Utter commitment to anything is beyond the realms of any living being - we are all of us imperfect.
If, to justify something, you need to argue that people do things that are impossible for people to do then your argument is self-refuting.
So you accept that someone who shows no mercy to the most innocent and vulnerable of people is gladly and willingly open to receiving the love of God?
You don't think that the love of God (if you were to believe it exists) has any moral content such that it can counter actions and attitudes that are opposed to it? That it cannot induce deep shame? That it cannot torment the conscience of those who have committed evil? That it cannot cripple the unrepentantly evil person with an overwhelming sense of his own depravity? That it cannot search out and expose the corruption of the human heart (a painful process)? That it is just eternal liberality with no questions asked? That the proud and conceited person who desires to be superior to everyone else can happily coexist with a reality which only exalts and glorifies God and which declares that all people should wholeheartedly submit to Him?
If that is what you believe (which must the case if you think that the love of God - or even just genuine compassion on the human level - cannot trouble anyone) then what you are really saying is that evil actually doesn't exist, because there is fundamentally no difference at heart between someone who does evil and someone who does what is good and right. In this view, evil is just a word that describes certain outward acts that society has arbitrarily decided are not desirable.
As far as I am concerned, evil is very real and it is a problem of the heart. The love of God is not just amoral liberality, but has a moral content that utterly destroys human conceit. If God is not 'hell' towards those who are unrepentant, then He is not - and cannot be - a God of love.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
In particular, the theory that people burn in hell just because that is how they experience the "love of God" is weird (really, experiencing love tortures them? how, practically speaking?) and in the end does little to counter the moral argument.
No, it is not weird but completely logical. If you believe that the love of God has a moral content (how can it not have, given that it defines the nature of righteousness, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 22:37-40?), then how can it not oppose that which is antithetical to it, namely, evil?
What is completely weird is the idea that God sends people to hell for any other reason. I cannot imagine anything more stupid than the idea that God deliberately fashions a torture chamber to torment people who just died not having ticked the right religious boxes. Such unreality and delusion.
My position faces up to the reality of God, His love and the reality of evil. Yours is a completely mechanistic, institutionally religious, legalistic imposition, which is unworthy of the God of all reality. And it doesn't surprise me that you frequently talk about heaven and hell in the language of gambling and probability, which I find beyond weird!
Anyway, rather than listening to your religious speculations, I prefer the Word of God which clearly states: "Our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). The verb here is "is" not "creates". Therefore the God, who is love, is hell.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I've asked this before:
I've never been clear whether the (possibly endless) pain of the lost is supposed to be:
The painful presence of God
The painful absence of God
Self inflicted pain
Torture inflicted by demonic powers
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think it's the pain of being what they are. What they have made themselves to be, what they go on being, what they have no intention of ever ceasing to be. What is by this point so utterly at odds with Reality that you could probably describe their state using any of the terms on your list, and from varying perspectives, each would be true.
When i was younger aand more naive, i asked a pastor friend why a particular pillar of the church was so unrelentingly nasty to me. His response was a real eye opener for me-- he said very gently, "She's a very unhappy woman."
I think being in and of hell must be like that.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If 'grace' is a state versus a place isn't 'hell' also a state not a place? I'm struck with the difficult metaphors we have for things like light, which apparently is a particle or a wave, depending on the need to explain in a particular instance. Hell might be a place and state, and really neither because we lack the ability to explain and understand.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Makes perfectly good sense to me, depending on how you parse it. For instance: You say your god is good. Hell, on the other hand is clearly immoral. I don't believe a good God would do that. So your god is self-contradictory and does not exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Seems more an argument for God being evil than for him not existing.
I don't think so. If you prove something is a contradiction, then you have shown it doesn't exist. An all-loving god sending people to Hell is (to these people's way of thinking) a contradiction. Therefore no such god exists.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell? Please give the facts, and the chain of reasoning.
Having no evidence of anyone, either personally, or from any trustworthy and testable source who has after dying, been to and returned from hell, I think that I am fairly safe here in passing the burden of proof to you!
Nope. That is the one thing you CANNOT do, given the way you phrased your original claim. You claimed that there is factual evidence for the non-existence of Hell, NOT that there is no factual evidence for the existence of hell. When asked to bring forth this factual evidence for the non-existence of Hell, you punted.
This post of yours is, in effect, a capitulation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yes, and because a thingy on a different plane of reality may only be discussable in this one by means of metaphor.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, it is not weird but completely logical. If you believe that the love of God has a moral content (how can it not have, given that it defines the nature of righteousness, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 22:37-40?), then how can it not oppose that which is antithetical to it, namely, evil?
Obviously God is opposed to evil, that's not the point. But love is not fire or torture, other than metaphorically speaking. So there would not be an "external" fire or torture then. And even if you mean it metaphorically, then how does that work? Love may burn me like fire if I love someone and that love is not answered. But the one who does not love is not usually affected, at least they do not feel tortured (perhaps mildly annoyed by my advances). So if you told me that God is "burning in hell" because he loves the sinners now in His presence, who still do not love Him - fine. That makes sense. The reverse however does not make sense at all. Why would a sinner who does not want God be affected by not having God?
You really only have two choices. Either God burns the sinners in hell actively, whether directly (He is like a gamma ray burst and only saints get shielding) or indirectly (the classical being handed over to the demons as their plaything). Or God burns the sinners in hell passively, by denying them what they want. Maybe they now want Him, but He is now not willing any longer to accommodate that wish. Maybe they want to get into paradise, but they are locked out with no chance of access. In both these cases God however retains some obvious responsibility for the state of the sinners. The idea however that they are somehow pained by not having what they still do not want, namely God and His love, is weird.
Basically, your concept of how hell works, mechanistically not morally, is the bully's "you are hitting yourself" written large. It is not true for the bully, and I do not see how it can be true for the afterlife.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think IngoB is right about presumption. Assurance is another matter. I have this Julian-like assurance that all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. I also have some kind of assurance that the myriad sufferings in this world, many of which cause "blood to cry out from the ground", will be finally put to rest. So there will be Judgment and there will be Mercy when Righteousness and Peace are met together. There seems to me to be a fittedness in that.
We need to steer a course between self-satisfied complacency and an anxious doing of things out of fear of consequences. That's not very easy in practice, but it seems to be necessary if we are to make progress on the Way.
I'm quite taken be the notion that in the end the "all in all" presence of God will be heaven for some, hell for others. How can God be both Love and Refiners Fire? That's not a question to which I have a perfectly clear answer. But I believe He is.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
it is non-human to be really perfect, and that we cannot even really understand how one can be a person and perfect. Yet God is perfect. So it is clear that God is non-human.
I am confused. What about Jesus? I thought that as far as most conventional Christology goes, God was and is really human and really perfect. God is also theorised as being more than human, but the latter does not deny the former.
Moreover, Jesus is a problem if you want to justify an eternal tormentor God as not evil, but simply wholly other. Jesus (and so God) understands the agony of suffering in excruciating detail, and this understanding was enough for Him to wish to avoid the agony.
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite taken be the notion that in the end the "all in all" presence of God will be heaven for some, hell for others. How can God be both Love and Refiners Fire? That's not a question to which I have a perfectly clear answer. But I believe He is.
That's closer to the Orthodox understanding. I don't believe that hell is separation from God or completely removed from his grace because nothing exists apart from God.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite taken be the notion that in the end the "all in all" presence of God will be heaven for some, hell for others. How can God be both Love and Refiners Fire? That's not a question to which I have a perfectly clear answer. But I believe He is.
That's closer to the Orthodox understanding. I don't believe that hell is separation from God or completely removed from his grace because nothing exists apart from God.
Yes, it's one of the understandings I've learned from dialogue here. It sits alongside William Law's remarkable insight that if we make articles (i.e some kind of contract) how we serve God we'll find we've signed both copies (of the contract) ourselves. We struggle with the clear as crystal truth that God really is Sovereign. The Lord who reigns. Who is and will be the judge of all the earth and will do right.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IngoB's point is interesting, about not having what you don't want - how can that be painful? But my understanding is that for some, being loved is hell, and God's love is pervasive.
That makes sense to me, since I am familiar with people who dread love and shield themselves from it by various means. So you could see God's love as unbearable and a torment.
It's an interesting distinction - since some Christians see hell as separation from God, and others as quite the opposite.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That makes sense to me, since I am familiar with people who dread love and shield themselves from it by various means. So you could see God's love as unbearable and a torment.
So do I - but only because of their bad experiences.
Should they be punished due circumstances not under their control, which made them unable to receive love?
Once again - an example of God behaving worse than I would.
I like the New Church's (Swedenborgian) teaching on Heaven and Hell - that we go where it suits us best and we'll be happiest, heaven and hell are a continuum and we can move 'up' when we are ready.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In other words agingjb (love the mute ee), none of the above.
We truly have no idea, not the faintest, foggiest how transcendence works. There will be no wooden yeah-buts.
We are tiny, minimal creatures, crushed in tinier skulls, barely alive, barely aware, barely able to put one thought in front of another as we drag our boulders of dysphoria about here in Hell. The question as to how Hadean we are, is do we help each other?
As the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre, Sidon, Bethsaida and Chorazin will all have a bearable judgement there is NOTHING to worry about.
I had a fantasy I shared here recently as I walked across the park, inspired by reading Doris Lessing's Shikasta, the first of the Canopus in Argos series decades ago. We just keep walking. From one reality to the next. My former sister in law keeps walking, but without any of the limitations of Down's syndrome. Her sister has no bipolarity. Moz keeps walking without the slightest need for alcohol. Hitler walks where no one knows him and knowing, for certain, that he'll see his mother soon.
My narrative, as good as anyone else's, needs a process, not an instantaneous complete transformation to some Platonic ideal of ourselves.
This odd, unenlightened, wooden clinging to ancient Jewish Christian speculation is most ... odd.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
Wait for it...
And of course it's too late to refer to this in my post, which I had intended to do!
Oh there is plenty of proof for the existence of Hell. Look at all the people who believe in Hell. The Bible teaches there is a Hell. The Church teaches there is a Hell. Other religions teach the existence of something akin to Hell.
Which might prove, merely, that the majority of people are deluded.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It may. However, Susan Doris said there was no evidence for Hell existing. There is enough evidence to convince millions if not billions of people throughout the ages across the world of the existence of Hell. All of them may be wrong but I doubt all of them are deluded.
What Susan Doris means is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of Hell. She often starts with bold claims like evidence proves the nonexistence of something then when questioned retreats to the burden of proof isn't on her. However, the burden of proof is on her to prove that empiricism is the only way knowing. Can we empirically prove that empiricism is the only way of knowing? No, we can't.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite taken be the notion that in the end the "all in all" presence of God will be heaven for some, hell for others. How can God be both Love and Refiners Fire? That's not a question to which I have a perfectly clear answer. But I believe He is.
That's closer to the Orthodox understanding. I don't believe that hell is separation from God or completely removed from his grace because nothing exists apart from God.
Yes, but I believe that the Orthodix understanding is not that it is God's love that people experience either as heaven or hell, but rather the uncreated divine light of God, which is either experienced as glory and blessedness or as fire and pain depending on the condition of one's heart.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye leo, they are creating Hell and don't know it. And people who believe that because the majority of pre-postmodern people couldn't and can't not woodenly believe in Hell that that constitutes proof of Hell are doubly deluded and damned.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
Yes, but I believe that the Orthodix understanding is not that it is God's love that people experience either as heaven or hell, but rather the uncreated divine light of God, which is either experienced as glory and blessedness or as fire and pain depending on the condition of one's heart.
But how is the uncreated divine light of God not also the love of God, given that "God is love"? Is there a part of God which is not love?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen
Yes, but I believe that the Orthodix understanding is not that it is God's love that people experience either as heaven or hell, but rather the uncreated divine light of God, which is either experienced as glory and blessedness or as fire and pain depending on the condition of one's heart.
But how is the uncreated divine light of God not also the love of God, given that "God is love"? Is there a part of God which is not love?
I should have been a little clearer—it is not just the love of God that people experience as heaven or hell. As I understand it, the uncreated divine light of God is the radiance of the love, of the truth, of the grace, of the creative and healing energies and of the Life of God. So it is not just exposure, as it were, to God's love that some experience as hell. It is exposure to the reality of all that God is. It is seeing God face to face.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That makes sense to me, since I am familiar with people who dread love and shield themselves from it by various means. So you could see God's love as unbearable and a torment.
So do I - but only because of their bad experiences.
Should they be punished due circumstances not under their control, which made them unable to receive love?
Once again - an example of God behaving worse than I would.
I like the New Church's (Swedenborgian) teaching on Heaven and Hell - that we go where it suits us best and we'll be happiest, heaven and hell are a continuum and we can move 'up' when we are ready.
A very good point. In fact, this raises the whole question of evil, doesn't it? I mean, that many people who do bad things were fearfully abused as children, and later. As you say, some views about God seem to perpetuate this - now you're really gonna get a hiding from the head beak!
I suppose you could say that it's still their responsibility, no matter how abused they were, but the whole question of punishment seems shaky to me.
But then you could say that God might take all this into account.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Words like 'responsibility' and 'punishment'? Where do they come from? Honestly 'q', they're utterly meaningless fossils.
Might? MIGHT?! Of course He does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It may. However, Susan Doris said there was no evidence for Hell existing.
Yes, I should have said 'empirical evidence' but whatever the chosen description, or whatever is the correct phrase in philosophical terms, there are so many descriptions of what people believe hell to be that you'd think after all this time someone would have an acceptable definition, rather than more unsubstantiatede ideas.
quote:
There is enough evidence to convince millions if not billions of people throughout the ages across the world of the existence of Hell.
If there's one thing I've learnt from descussion forums, it'sthat the number of people who believe something to be unassailably true does not make it so. It's the perennial problem of the emperor's new clothes, isn't it?
quote:
All of them may be wrong but I doubt all of them are deluded.
Agreed; not all those people have had the belief forced on them.
[
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
