Is Hell Real ?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

The reason why people can't be annihilated has been presented to you just above. Are you able to continue?

It is not present above at all. Please detail why they cannot be, then also explain why God set it up in this way and not in a way that doesn't result in eternal torture.

You have also sidestepped the admission you are tacitly making.
Your heaven requires that beings suffer.
That is evil.

kelly1

To the OP, yes, I very much believe so. Jesus taught about it and St Faustina was taken there:

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

https://aleteia.org/2013/10/25/3-absolutely-terrifying-visions-of-hell/

But I think you're asking this in the wrong forum. Of course atheists are going to deny the existence of hell!

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

It is not present above at all. Please detail why they cannot be, then also explain why God set it up in this way and not in a way that doesn't result in eternal torture.

You have also sidestepped the admission you are tacitly making.
Your heaven requires that beings suffer.
That is evil.

Why not in this set up ? Annihilation would deny the person their choice for evil. The choice made in life aren't for good vs nothing ( such that ultimate nothingness is the full consequence). Nothing has no attractive value such as to sway our life choices in its direction.

You're mixing your units. Choice for evil in life bears no like unit consequences if annihilation.

God could have, presumably set the choices up otherwise. But in order to lessen the consequences in the negative direction he would, in order to maintain balance, have had to reduce the positive consequences. Else the choice would be skewed.

He is entitled to set the choice bar as high as he likes - and set it as high as it could be: people becoming children of God (a.k.a. God wanted, like we do, kids). Since only good can be a family member, that had to be the consequences in that direction.

You can say there could be no heaven without hell. But only in the sense that the two are inseparably intertwined. Like heads and harps.

Remember. The reason people will occupy hell is that they loved their evil side and didn't want rid of it

Michael OBrien

kelly1 wrote: »

To the OP, yes, I very much believe so. Jesus taught about it and St Faustina was taken there:

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

https://aleteia.org/2013/10/25/3-absolutely-terrifying-visions-of-hell/

But I think you're asking this in the wrong forum. Of course atheists are going to deny the existence of hell!

Might be worth noting that the bible states that sending people back from hell is pointless as witnesses.

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:31

Such reports are indistinguishable from torture fantasies.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

God could have, presumably set the choices up otherwise. But in order to lessen the consequences in the negative direction he would, in order to maintain balance, have had to reduce the positive consequences. Else the choice would be skewed.

He is entitled to set the choice bar as high as he likes - and set it as high as it could be: people becoming children of God (a.k.a. God wanted, like we do, kids). Since only good can be a family member, that had to be the consequences in that direction.

So he could have set it up another way that didn't result in suffering. But he didn't. There's no way to justify this if it results in the torture of countless beings.

You keep saying that he must balance things, assuming this entirely imaginary rule was true, why couldn't he just tip the balance using his infinite power to spare people suffering?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can say there could be no heaven without hell. But only in the sense that the two are inseparably intertwined. Like heads and harps.

So then heaven exists because of the suffering of others.
Heaven cannot exist without people suffering.

This is evil. Pure and simple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember. The reason people will occupy hell is that they loved their evil side and didn't want rid of it

Some people deserve to be tortured?

So again, you still believe that your god is good?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So he could have set it up another way that didn't result in suffering. But he didn't. There's no way to justify this if it results in the torture of countless beings.

You'll have to make your objection regarding choice stick. That's the rationale for the existence of hell

You keep saying that he must balance things, assuming this entirely imaginary rule was true,

It's not imaginary. A choice that is skewed in a direction isn't a choice. It's a stacked deck, a crooked coin toss

why couldn't he just tip the balance using his infinite power to spare people suffering?

Infinite power cannot make a square circle. Nor can it make a straight stacked deck.

Can you move past omnipotence meaning anything at all is possible. It's straight out of the Dawkins playbook Which isn't saying much.

So then heaven exists because of the suffering of others.
Heaven cannot exist without people suffering.

Heaven and hell exist as two sides of a coin. You trying to bend the point into this form of words is but a side step

All centres on balanced choice and consequence of choice. Other that your appeal to a stacked deck, I don't see much by way of counter argument from you.

Professor Moriarty

I think John Milton got it right in Paradise Lost:

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll have to make your objection regarding choice stick. That's the rationale for the existence of hell

It's not imaginary. A choice that is skewed in a direction isn't a choice. It's a stacked deck, a crooked coin toss

Now you're contradicting yourself.
You're saying that it has to be a straight, fair equal choice and that choice is the most important thing.
But the choice is none of those things and your god is forcing us to make that choice, disregarding our choices in all of the things.

And yes, your insistence on "balance" is imaginary and arbitrary.
You have decided that the balance of heaven is suffering, yet reject the idea of non-existence as balance.

And again, you have admitted that this isn't the only way God could have set up the universe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Infinite power cannot make a square circle. Nor can it make a straight stacked deck.

Can you move past omnipotence meaning anything at all is possible. It's straight out of the Dawkins playbook Which isn't saying much.

You are dishonestly conflating two points to justify your position.
What I'm proposing is not some kind of impossible self contradiction.

God could easily make the choice between heaven and non-existence.
This would eliminate suffering.
Which part of this is contradictory or impossible?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Heaven and hell exist as two sides of a coin. You trying to bend the point into this form of words is but a side step

All centres on balanced choice and consequence of choice. Other that your appeal to a stacked deck, I don't see much by way of counter argument from you.

You can spin it if you like, but the fact remains that you believe that beings suffer unnecessarily so others may benefit.
You are trying to bend over backwards to make it seem like this isn't inherently evil.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Let's look

You're saying that it has to be a straight, fair equal choice and that choice is the most important thing.

Indeed. Insofar as it isn't fair, equal, straight, balanced, it moves away from being choice and into something else, short of choice.

But the choice is none of those things and your god is forcing us to make that choice, disregarding our choices in all of the things.

Being put into a position where you have to make a choice between opposing options doesn't alter the balance of the choice facing you.

I'm not sure what you mean "disregarding our choices in all of the things". What things are you talking about?

And yes, your insistence on "balance" is imaginary and arbitrary.

Balance is the definition of perfect choice. As I say, any imbalance and the choice becomes a weighted one. I'm not sure how you can argue against that. If you insist true choice doesn't require balance then I think we'd have to end the discussion on it due to speaking different languages.

You have decided that the balance of heaven is suffering, yet reject the idea of non-existence as balance.

The balance of cold is hot. The balance of up is down. The balance of black is white. All dealing in the same units: temperature, direction, reflection of light.

Joy/despair, relationship/no relationship, peace/torment. All on the same scale of experience, just at opposite ends of the spectrum

Your idea mixes units like I say.


I'm not insisting you agree with the above rational but it is at least a rational. You simply persist in asserting without actually formulating a rational. So, your mixing your units in your solution. How do you actually work it out in detail?

And again, you have admitted that this isn't the only way God could have set up the universe.

And again, you cherry pick and leave out the rational given. If less on the one side of the balance (i.e. no suffering) then less on the other side of the balance.

But if joy on one side, then suffering on the other.

You keep on ducking the fact that the suffering isn't necessary. It is a choice. The person has refused joy and plumped for suffering. Remember: for the sake of argument we are not supposing your/Dawkins version of God where the joy is the joy of submitting to a tyrant. We are supposing the joy a joy that would satisfy anyone.

God could easily make the choice between heaven and non-existence.
This would eliminate suffering.Which part of this is contradictory or impossible?

Back to balance.

The choice is good /evil. Polar opposites. Balance

The choice, whichever it is, has consequences forever. Balance

The person is the one who decides which it is to be - they are responsible for the eternal position they find themselves in. Balance

When you say "easily" you are waving a magic wand. Unless you can circumvent the problem of balance.

And the way you attempt to circumvent that is to say balance is an imaginary / arbitrary idea when it comes to what choice is.

Hopefully you'll have dealt with this above.

You can spin it if you like, but the fact remains that you believe that beings suffer unnecessarily so others may benefit.
You are trying to bend over backwards to make it seem like this isn't inherently evil.

I don't say unnecessarily. I say inextricably linked. And it seems that balance provides the inextricable link. Lest you manage to show (not assert) balance not required for perfect choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

To the OP, yes, I very much believe so. Jesus taught about it and St Faustina was taken there:

Given the forum you are in though I think people here might be less interested in WHO taught it (Jesus or otherwise) and what substantiation they might have offered WHILE teaching it.

Are you are of any arguments, evidence, data or reasons presented by this Jesus or anyone else that such a place exists? Or, to return to first principles on it.... have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that suggests human consciousness, sentience, awareness or individuality can actually survive the death of the biological brain as would be required for them to attend this hell?

We seem to have a lost of posts on the thread telling us what hell is like and what gets one there, but I can not reply to them as that is not what the thread is about. There is not a SINGLE post so far on the thread topic of whether it ACTUALLY exists which gives us any reason to think it actually does. My son can DESCRIBE his imaginary friend in a lot of detail too.... but no one has any apparent reason to think the friend real.

So descriptions OF a thing are not evidence the thing actually exists.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't say unnecessarily. I say inextricably linked. And it seems that balance provides the inextricable link. Lest you manage to show (not assert) balance not required for perfect choice.

Lots of waffle there. No much point in trying to address it only to get reams of word salad back.

You keep saying there has to be choice and there has to be balance. (Both completely baseless assertions mind)
Why not have a choice between existing and not-existing?

paulmurphyvec

Very funny ha ha

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Lots of waffle there. No much point in trying to address it only to get reams of word salad back.

And I'm inclined to think your dodging. But will setitle for lack of common ground on which to progress discussion.

If you don't see choice as necessitating balance between options presented, for instance, then there's no progression to be had.

Over and out.

kelly1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are you a[wa]re of any arguments, evidence, data or reasons presented by this Jesus or anyone else that such a place exists?

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

BrokenArrows

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Consider this.

There are 7+ billion people on the planet and every day countless thousands experience death followed by resuscitation.

If there was an afterlife experienced by a near death scenario then you would expect there to be a level of consistency that every single person who died and was resuscitated would experience.

Instead you get the occasional experience reported by someone who essentially just remembers a dream they had while unconscious.

If you are to believe in heaven/hell that means you must also believe in a god and a devil.

Also you would think that if there was an afterlife controlled by an all powerful GOD then they would actually know whether you are actually dead or not and you wouldnt pass through to the other side until you were actually dead 100% and not able to be recovered.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Infinite power cannot make a square circle. Nor can it make a straight stacked deck.

Then it's not infinite power.

If there are fundamental rules that cannot be broken, then the entity does not have infinite power.

A being of infinite power could make a square circle. Our inability to imagine such a thing does not affect their ability to do it.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

To the OP, yes, I very much believe so. Jesus taught about it and St Faustina was taken there:

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

https://aleteia.org/2013/10/25/3-absolutely-terrifying-visions-of-hell/

But I think you're asking this in the wrong forum. Of course atheists are going to deny the existence of hell!

So, what makes the Christian hell anymore believable than, say Jahannam, Naraka or Avici. If the Christian hell is real because Jesus teaches about then isn't Jahannam also real on the basis that Muhammad teaches about it?

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

No, there isn't good evidence that Jesus existed. There is scant evidence that Jesus existed. To recap previous arguments on the matter, concerning Jesus there is:

• No writings by Jesus
• No contempraneous writings about Jesus
• No extrabiblical writings about Jesus that predate the gospels
• No mention of Jesus from scholars writing about the subject/region at the time (e.g. Philo of Alexandria, Justus Tiberius, Seneca the Younger)

Added to this, we have lots of reasons to reject the gospel accounts as reliable histories, including but not limited to:

• The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
• The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
• The author does not place himself in the story.
• The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
• The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
• There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
• The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
• Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

Furthermore, the extrabiblical sources that do make some reference to Jesus are weak, at best, and even the earliest of these, Josephus' Antiquities is riddled with problems and comes after all of Paul's writings and the first three gospels. None of the extrabiblical sources for Jesus represent independent verification of his existence.

However, the real problem here is that all of this information was given to you the last time you made such a claim and you ran away from the argument:

kelly1 wrote: »

Oldrnwisr, again, I appreciate all the effort you've gone to in writing such long and well thought-out posts. And I thank others posters who have contributed positively to the discussion. But it's time for me to thrown in the towel and admit defeat.

To quality this, I mean I don't see how I can convince anyone of my claims and at the same time, I don't think I've had my claims destroyed. It's just a stalemate.

I might just come back with something, but this is a marker of sorts.

Thanks.

[Edit, oldrnwisr, I intend to go back and read your post]

So I don't really know why you're back here making the same baseless claims when you so spectacularly failed to defend them the last time.

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

Then, there is your answer to the OP Title and topic then.

Q: Is Hell real ?
A: We have absolutely no evidence to suggest it does.

Well that was simple wasn't it? But actually I would ADD to it like follows:

Q: Is Hell real ?
A: We have absolutely no evidence to suggest it does and SOME reasons to suggest it does not.

kelly1 wrote: »

Having said that, I believe in hell because Jesus said it exists and I think there is very good evidence that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that his claim to be God is true.

Ok three claims there. Which would you like to substantiate first because I have seen NO substantiation for two of them, and VERY LITTLE substantiation for a third. So take your pick of one or more of them:

1) Evidence that Jesus existed.
2) Evidence that he (or any other person at that time) rose from death.
3) The claim he was a god is true.

Have at it. I am agog.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leaving aside if Hell is real or not, I have a real problem with the very basic premise of hell, eternal damnation.
There are so many problems with this. What about people of a different, or no, faith? What makes them wrong?
Will everyone in India and China go to hell for not saying their bedtime prayers?
What gives christians the right and the arrogance to say "I Alone Am Right!"?
The argument "Well, all the thousands of other religions are wrong" is not even an argument. That is straight down the toilet. I will not even entertain the thought.
Isn't God about forgiveness? And Jesus even more so, the old hippie?
For that reason alone I would reject eternal damnation as a concept out of hand.
It is merely a concept thought out to control the weak minded and with that you have critical mass, so the rest will run along with the idea.
It's the bogeyman of the church to scare people into submission.
I can only refer to my sig and say that my made up hogwash is at least as credible as yours (not you atheists ).

Hotblack Desiato

BrokenArrows wrote: »

There are 7+ billion people on the planet and every day countless thousands experience death followed by resuscitation.

They weren't dead though.

dr.fuzzenstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They weren't dead though.

According to this website, 107,602,707,791 people have ever lived as of 2011.
Of all of these, only one has ever been reported as coming back from the dead. And quite frankly, I find the story of his conception already hard to believe, so I would not class this as reliable evidence.
Yes, every single one of the 107,602,707,791 who have died, have stubbornly remained so, barring a zombie apocalypse in the near future.

Hell as a concept is great if you are an organisation striving for greater control of your subjects. Because it uses arguments based on "facts" that are absolutely unprovable and irrefutable (Tiger Rock) and threatens a punishment that is much of the same. I am ashamed that humans are gullible enough to buy it.
You can use it to make them do anything for you, it even goes as far as controlling their sex-life! Deciding for someone if they shall be permitted to have sex (mostly no), have a **** (erm, no) or be allowed to love someone with the same sexual organs (YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!) is the utlimate form of control. And the absolute nadir of passive aggressiveness is my personal opinion.

harrylittle

kelly1 wrote: »

No I can't offer an evidence that hell exists. It's purely a matter of faith.

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real. In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

Gregk961

harrylittle wrote: »

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real. In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

If you have two other witnesses saying the opposite that's enough to lose most cases. You have hundreds of people on youtube claiming hell isn't real.

Even by your own mind boggling logic this argument is rubbish.

Hotblack Desiato

harrylittle wrote: »

There are lots of people on utub claiming hell is real.

There's quite a few too claiming that the earth is flat.

In a court case if you have two or more witnesses you would have enough sufficient evidence to win most cases . On utube you have hundreds of witnesses.

But they have not a shred of credibility. So no.

jk23

Honestly when I was driving today I was just thinking to myself how mad you he whole situation of how people found themselves here,

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

NIMAN

jk23 wrote: »

Honestly when I was driving today I was just thinking to myself how mad you he whole situation of how people found themselves here,

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

Probably no crazier an idea of a Heaven as portrayed by the church.

Neon_Lights

Just to follow up on the Hell, Norway References
Hell[font=arial,sans-serif] is a post [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]town[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] with two post codes: 7517 for delivery route addresses and 7570 for post-office boxes. [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]Hell[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] currently has a grocery store, gas station, a fast food shop and a retirement home. [/font]

nozzferrahhtoo

jk23 wrote: »

we have no 100% sound theory as to how or what created the universe or what the purpose of life is.

That sentence assumes there IS a purpose of life in the first place. So you are kinda putting the cart before the horse on that one. Your first question should not be WHAT the purpose of life is, it should be whether there is any reason to even think there IS one in the first place. We have zero evidence at this time that there is.

jk23 wrote: »

When the lights go out when we die my own theory is we awake in another consciousness in a new body most probably in the future and the cycle continues... this may sound crazy but its the way I feel about it at the moment anyway!!

Well I do not think it is really "your own" theory given it has a name (reincarnation) and many many people subscribe to it. There is however absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

In fact we used to have one user who heavily subscribed to it, but he ran away in shame shortly after being called on it. He was asked for his BEST evidence that reincarnation was real. The very best case he could find and offer.

What did he come up with? A young girl who could speak a long dead language. Sounds impressive? Not very when you dig into it and find out that said girl had a father who studied that group of people and.... you guessed it..... their language.

Shortly after that was revealed, the user never posted on boards.ie again.

dr.fuzzenstein

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Just to follow up on the Hell, Norway References
Hell[font=arial,sans-serif] is a post [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]town[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] with two post codes: 7517 for delivery route addresses and 7570 for post-office boxes. [/font][font=arial,sans-serif]Hell[/font][font=arial,sans-serif] currently has a grocery store, gas station, a fast food shop and a retirement home. [/font]

Yes and it freezes over pretty much every winter

angryIreGamer

https://goo.gl/maps/4S2oyBcmudR2

antiskeptic

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Leaving aside if Hell is real or not, I have a real problem with the very basic premise of hell, eternal damnation.
There are so many problems with this. What about people of a different, or no, faith? What makes them wrong?
Will everyone in India and China go to hell for not saying their bedtime prayers?
What gives christians the right and the arrogance to say "I Alone Am Right!"?
The argument "Well, all the thousands of other religions are wrong" is not even an argument. That is straight down the toilet. I will not even entertain the thought.
Isn't God about forgiveness? And Jesus even more so, the old hippie?
For that reason alone I would reject eternal damnation as a concept out of hand.
It is merely a concept thought out to control the weak minded and with that you have critical mass, so the rest will run along with the idea.
It's the bogeyman of the church to scare people into submission.
I can only refer to my sig and say that my made up hogwash is at least as credible as yours (not you atheists ).

You could track and read my posts upstream. They deal with the rationale for Hell. You'd find, for instance that people of other faiths and none, have as much potential access to heaven or hell as a person of Christian religion.

It might resolve some of the problems you have with the "basic premise of Hell"

I'd warn however, that you need to accept the model of God presented (for the sake of discussion) rather than Dawkinsian one frequently put forward in A&A

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

people of other faiths and none, have as much potential access to heaven or hell as a person of Christian religion.

Thus making christian religion unnecessary? Superfluous? Might it be better to remove the complication of religion (think of all the horrors done in religions name) and let humanity try to sort the rest of it's problems?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd warn however, that you need to accept the model of God presented (for the sake of discussion) rather than Dawkinsian one frequently put forward in A&A

Even going by your model of god (for the sake of argument we are not supposing your/Dawkins version of God where the joy is the joy of submitting to a tyrant. We are supposing the joy a joy that would satisfy anyone.), the premise still doesn't make any sense.
Eternal punishment is equally opposite to eternal joy, but that doesn't make them equal to each other. From our point of view, the "choice" offered to us is clearly stacked in such a way to make it no choice (Would you rather €1000 or a kick to the groin). Going by your argument, there are people from 1000s of years ago, suffering eternally in hell. And they will do so forever. What purpose does that serve? It's eternal, so they can't learn from their mistakes, they can't improve themselves. They don't get anything out of it. The people they've wronged are long since in heaven and they don't get anything out of it. God can't get anything out of it. So what is it's purpose?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thus making christian religion unnecessary? Superfluous? Might it be better to remove the complication of religion (think of all the horrors done in religions name) and let humanity try to sort the rest of it's problems?

I don't suppose it's critical for a person's salvation. But there is far more to God than his final salvation. You have the car, now here's the manual.

Even going by your model of god (for the sake of argument we are not supposing your/Dawkins version of God where the joy is the joy of submitting to a tyrant. We are supposing the joy a joy that would satisfy anyone.), the premise still doesn't make any sense.
Eternal punishment is equally opposite to eternal joy, but that doesn't make them equal to each other.

That's a good way to put it. Equal and opposite.

From our point of view, the "choice" offered to us is clearly stacked in such a way to make it no choice (Would you rather €1000 or a kick to the groin).

For the purposes of discussion we are supposing sin attractive and goodness attractive. They ARE both attractive (even if the attraction appeals to different aspects of us). Otherwise we wouldn't partake of both.

Going by your argument, there are people from 1000s of years ago, suffering eternally in hell. And they will do so forever. What purpose does that serve? It's eternal, so they can't learn from their mistakes, they can't improve themselves. They don't get anything out of it. The people they've wronged are long since in heaven and they don't get anything out of it. God can't get anything out of it. So what is it's purpose?

What God gets out of it is having enabled people to determine their eternal destinations for themselves. To grant their hearts desire. That he would prefer had all plumped to be constructed from his characteristics is secodary to the primary need to let them determine their own constitution. He is satisfied with having acted fairly even if on a secondary level he is pained.*

It's less about who the occupants of hell have sinned against (that is more the mechanism by which they decide upon their eternal constitution). Rather, they obtain the constitution they plumped for: to consist of everything they are already that isn't made in the image and likeness of God.

I'm inclined to suppose that the restraining effect of a person being made with God characteristics once shorn from them, is what renderstwhile the person utterly ugly. The horror is already with in us, just tempered for now.

Similar, but opposite to the heavenbound, who will be stripped of everything which isn't in the image and likeness of God.

A case of thy will be done for all.


*It could well be that God's pain lasts up to the time when the person is stripped of his image. After that, they are no longer see persons as such (I've used the word creatures to differentiate them ). Rather, they are abominable so presumably no pain experienced by God as their plight. The only aspect of personhood connected with these creatures is the choice they made which had them constituted as they are now constituted. But the person no longer exists to be pitied. Nobody need pity pure evil. Not when it chose freely to be in that condition as opposed to the alternative

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the purposes of discussion we are supposing sin attractive and goodness attractive. They ARE both attractive (even if the attraction appeals to different aspects of us). Otherwise we wouldn't partake of both.

But sin is the act of making the choice. The thing you are choosing is still heaven or hell. Really, my analogy just changes to "Would you rather €1000 tomorrow, or €1 today and a kick to the groin tomorrow?" It's still stacked.
If you understand and accept the question as valid then there is only one reasonable choice. If you choose hell then you don't understand the question in which case your choice is meaningless. If you reject the validity of the question then you either get hell anyway (classical christian interpretation) or you are judged based on your other actions regardless. Either of which amounts to means no choice.
On every level, this amounts to no meaningful choice being made.

antiskeptic wrote: »

[those in hell] obtain the constitution they plumped for: to consist of everything they are already that isn't made in the image and likeness of God.

I'm inclined to suppose that the restraining effect of a person being made with God characteristics once shorn from them, is what renderstwhile the person utterly ugly. The horror is already with in us, just tempered for now.

Similar, but opposite to the heavenbound, who will be stripped of everything which isn't in the image and likeness of God.

A case of thy will be done for all.

So, in order to avoid the problem of a nonsensical eternal punishment that exists in standard christian interpretations, you have created a hell that is, to put it simply, existence without god or his aspects? And that the people there knowingly choose that?
If they choose that, then how is hell a bad thing? Everyone seemingly wants to be there. They aren't hurting anyone in heaven. The people in heaven want to be there and they don't effect anyone in hell. Everyone gets what they want, apparently.

harrylittle

Gregk961 wrote: »

If you have two other witnesses saying the opposite that's enough to lose most cases. You have hundreds of people on youtube claiming hell isn't real.

Even by your own mind boggling logic this argument is rubbish.

To be a credible witness they must have died for a few minutes. I have not come across such people on utube but if can you give me some names so that I can check there vids out.

dr.fuzzenstein

harrylittle wrote: »

To be a credible witness they must have died for a few minutes. I have not come across such people on utube but if can you give me some names so that I can check there vids out.

To be a credible witness all brain activity would have to have stopped.
You heart stopping isn't death.
And no one comes back from that. Even if your body is being kept alive, it's only good for donating organs.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But sin is the act of making the choice. The thing you are choosing is still heaven or hell.

Sin is the act (and action) of choosing in the direction evil. The thing you are choosing between is good and evil. These choices go into the "algorithm" which determines whether you end up saved or not.

(I say algorithm merely to avoid the simplistic conclusion that your good and evil choices are simply weighed up on a balance and whichever way the balance goes, you go. It's more complex than that)

Really, my analogy just changes to "Would you rather €1000 tomorrow, or €1 today and a kick to the groin tomorrow?" It's still stacked.

The mechanism of salvation/damnation plays out in a part of us which isn't considering eternal consequences. We aren't acting on the basis of our going to heaven or hell. We're acting on the basis of something more immediate: the benefits now, how the choice conforms to our value system, the level of pressure applied urging us in a direction we'd prefer not to go, whether we can live with the guilt, whether we prefer a clean conscience, etc.

It doesn't matter if you're a "believer" (i.e. not saved but believing in God/god). If your choice is for good because, for instance, you calculatingly think that will earn you points towards salvation then the algorithm notes the heart motivation behind it and the supposed good is assessed accordingly.

The balance lies in the forces behind the humdrum choices presented to us. Good and evil are the big players exerting their respective influences.

If you understand and accept the question as valid then there is only one reasonable choice. If you choose hell then you don't understand the question in which case your choice is meaningless. If you reject the validity of the question then you either get hell anyway (classical christian interpretation) or you are judged based on your other actions regardless. Either of which amounts to means no choice.
On every level, this amounts to no meaningful choice being made.

As I've said elsewhere, I fully expect there to be atheists, muslims, buddhists and the like "in heaven" (actually, a recreated earth, just without the brokenness). It doesn't matter what your position is on the question of hell if faced with the discussion on it. You can ignore it, you can persist in holding a Dawkinsian view of it, you can believe in it.

None of that necessarily has any impact on whether you end up there or not.

The algorithm considers the whole of your life - not just your intellectual musings on the subject of heaven and hell. It considers the, literally, hundreds and hundreds of ways every day in which you chose/think/act ... and desire to choose/think/act even when choosing/thinking/acting contrary to that desire.

It utilizes the things that happen to you for good and for ill and how you respond to those things.

Good and evil occupy those places. The devil, and God are in the detail


The algorithm, like I say, isn't looking to weigh up the good/bad choices and determine your destination accordingly. But rather than get into a discussion about the mechanism of salvation, I've hopefully said enough to highlight the decision coming from a much deeper place than intellectual evaluation.

It has to: otherwise a persons salvation would depend on the country they were born in, the intellectual ability they had, the religion they were brought up in or no. All of that is taken account of such that balance is achieved for all.

So, in order to avoid the problem of a nonsensical eternal punishment that exists in standard christian interpretations, you have created a hell that is, to put it simply, existence without god or his aspects? And that the people there knowingly choose that?

Believers are as prone to Dawkinsian-level caricatures as is Dawkins.

A theology can be stagnant - you take what you're told in your local church, accept it and work on that basis. Or you suppose there being no end to the digging you can do to refine and develop your understanding of the nature of God and how that works out in various ways.

The model of hell proposed is one which I think far better reflects the God being assumed for the sake of my discussion in this thread. A God who is indeed love, who is the very essence and source of that which is, in so far as there is a commonly held view, good.


I wouldn't say people knowingly choose Hell. The process of choice occurs deep within, even if we have some awareness that good and evil are present in ourselves and others. The choice posed to people is a veiled one - for to lay the full consequences of choice on the table would render choice impossible. Which you yourself appear to recognize.

But that's how choices go: we don't usually know the full consequences of our actions when we pick a direction to go in.

As ever, balance means that the person who comes to believe arrives at that place no more knowingly than the person who remains in disbelief.

If they choose that, then how is hell a bad thing?

Good observation. It isn't a bad thing. Consequences being delivered for a choice taken by a free willed being is a good thing. The consequences won't be enjoyed, and can be therefore considered bad. But only in the secondary sense. Primarily, choice is being upheld. Which is good.

"God is good" has a sobering side to it.

Everyone seemingly wants to be there. They aren't hurting anyone in heaven. The people in heaven want to be there and they don't effect anyone in hell. Everyone gets what they want, apparently.

Indeed. Whilst God wants that none would perish, this desire too, must take second place behind the primacy of choice.

dr.fuzzenstein

Wonderful, a theory as complicated as string theory and all wholly based on a premise for which there is not a shred of evidence.
All justified with "but we're telling you it's real!"
And now rewritten to suck in some poor Muslims and Atheists who had nothing to do with it in the first place.
And once again the question I keep asking which gets steadfastly ignored because there is no answer other than "because I'm right":

Why, oh WHY do Christians have the arrogance to say " this is the only true religion and the only true god"
I much prefer Shinto and Buddhism, give me the Norse gods any day or even his holiness the FSM.

Tell me that! I expected nothing more than deafening silence.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

dr.fuzzenstein

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

My theory is, the idea of hell stems from our human idea of justice. We threaten people with hell to prevent them doing misdeeds or to steer their behavior to suit the prevalent social and religious climate.
It is also a wish for justice, because when someone commits a misdeed we don't like it to go unpunished, so we might feel a bit better when we think that person went to hell.
Once again, it is a question of faith and belief, but how do we know only Christianity holds The One Truth?
I like the idea of Shinto. There is no such thing as hell.

http://jinja.or.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=14

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomi

We might as well believe in the bogeyman.
Of course to some people the answer lies in blind, unquestioning faith, but that way lie the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and ISIS.
Because where there is a belief system, there is someone willing to exploit it for their own gains. Hence Churches.
And how many people have been killed by radical atheists compared to radical religious people?
Organised religion has been a dismal failure, because even the message is peace and love, you can trust people to pervert it and exploit it for their own gains, i.e. money and power.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

My theory is, the idea of hell stems from our human idea of justice. We threaten people with hell to prevent them doing misdeeds or to steer their behavior to suit the prevalent social and religious climate. It is also a wish for justice, because when someone commits a misdeed we don't like it to go unpunished, so we might feel a bit better when we think that person went to hell. Once again, it is a question of faith and belief, but how do we know only Christianity holds The One Truth? I like the idea of Shinto. There is no such thing as hell.

Jesus said "I, am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

nozzferrahhtoo

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

I assume the evidence for your series of assertions here is.... what.... forthcoming?

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Jesus said "I, am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

And in Monthy Python a guy said "I am a lumberjack and its ok" and..... wait for it..... he was not ACTUALLY a lumberjack.

This may come as a shock to you, so I will try to break it easily........ but not everyone is who they say they are, or claim to be.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I assume the evidence for your series of assertions here is.... what.... forthcoming?

You are driving me mad. I tell you this, hell is real, and you wouldn't want to end up there. Over the gates of hell these words are proclaimed : "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".

GritBiscuit

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

You are driving me mad. I tell you this, hell is real, and you wouldn't want to end up there. Over the gates of hell these words are proclaimed : "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".

Same words are over my kitchen door...and I'd be the first to say you are better off taking your chances in the afterlife than with my apple strudel...:(

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

GritBiscuit wrote:

Same words are over my kitchen door...and I'd be the first to say you are better off taking your chances in the afterlife than with my apple strudel...

That's good!

Hotblack Desiato

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Yes, hell is real, and a distinct possibility for a great number of people, unless they repent sincerely. Your soul is eternal. An unrepentant sinner cannot enter into the joys of Heaven. An unrepentant sinner goes to hell, for all eternity.

Naah.

antiskeptic

qwadb78ejp260i wrote: »

Over the gates of hell these words are proclaimed : "Abandon hope all ye who enter here".

And from the perspective of the people you're trying to convince, over the gates of the Catholic church are the words "Arbeit macht frei"

You are promoting a God who effectively says "behave yourselves, follow my rules. If you don't, then I'll torture you forever"

Can you see why people would have a problem with that? They consider themselves free agents and a dictator rolls into town. Even if the cost is eternal punishment, they still won't bow to a dictator.

Jesus said a lot of things. And a lot of the things he said paint a picture of God which is anything other than dictator.

Perhaps you could bring the fuller picture to bear?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Mark Hamill wrote:

So, in order to avoid the problem of a nonsensical eternal punishment that exists in standard christian interpretations, you have created a hell that is, to put it simply, existence without god or his aspects? And that the people there knowingly choose that? If they choose that, then how is hell a bad thing? Everyone seemingly wants to be there. They aren't hurting anyone in heaven. The people in heaven want to be there and they don't effect anyone in hell. Everyone gets what they want, apparently.

Nonsensical eternal punishment! Dream on, friend.

tayto lover

So Hell is the "bold step" where you go for doing wrong and you can't get off it.
And people believe that "an ever-loving God" actually wants to or enjoys punishing mere mortals?? I can't believe that at all.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

tayto lover wrote:

So Hell is the "bold step" where you go for doing wrong and you can't get off it. And people believe that "an ever-loving God" actually wants to or enjoys punishing mere mortals?? I can't believe that at all.

Read my previous post. To clarify, the people who end up in hell hate God, and they will never repent. They are Lucifer and his fallen angels, who try to disrupt the coming of the eternal kingdom of love and peace. They deserve no rest, and they will get no rest, forever.