nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is Hell Real ?

harrylittle

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

The Hell you describe, and the one atheists believe in (for the purposes of arguing against it), doesn't exist.

Assembling such an image of Hell, requires it's proponents (which includes quite a few turn-or-burn street corner evangelists) to read the Bible literally, when it literally isn't intended to be read that way.

Hell, it appears, (simply) involves you being stripped of those aspects of yourself which are reflective of God, in whose image you are made. You are relational, for example: you empathize with others, have concern for others, are interested in others. And they with you. And so relationships (interestingly, either the best or worst things about life) exist.

You and they are so, because He is so. Stripped of that characteristic, you would be left only with the opposite side of the coin: selfishness, anger, impatience, hatred. No relationship possible in Hell thus, or, insofar as there is one, it can be carried out only on the basis of selfishness, anger, impatience, hatred.

You can consider many other elements of your character: generosity, selflessness, joyfulness, humor, ability to love, etc., etc. and apply the same consideration as above. They too have their less pleasant opposites.

-

The argument goes that you, like me and everyone else, exhibit both sides of our character in the course of our lives. We display the side informed by being made in his image and the side which is at enmity with his image. We do so, mixing both side up almost seamlessly at times.

-

Hell, like I say, is a place where you are stripped of that which was made in God's image. You are left with what's left. It it hard to imagine such a creature (for creature is what we are talking about - if no image of God remains) but we can look around in history and consider those in whom the image of God was already, as far as we could detect, extinguished. Not pretty.

Hell doesn't involve high temperatures. The writers of the Bible, who had come to appreciate the magnitude of the consequences involved, painted a picture. And they thought of the most horrendous environment possible for a human being to possibly picture.

Its not that they didn't cover the subject in great depth and explain in a full sense the how and why's and who's of Hell. The picture however, serves as a thumbnail. A focus point.

Real Hell, I imagine, is far far worse than the picture.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hell, like I say, is a place where you are stripped of that which was made in God's image. You are left with what's left. It it hard to imagine such a creature (for creature is what we are talking about - if no image of God remains) but we can look around in history and consider those in whom the image of God was already, as far as we could detect, extinguished. Not pretty.

It's always been weird to me that anyone is ok with this system and would be ok with enjoying heaven while others are suffering like that. Or that people would argue that eternal torture, of any kind be it fire and poking or a complete destruction of the self and more of a mental torture, is a just or good thing.

A good God would not visit torture on anyone, by action or inaction.

NIMAN

Hell was invented by man to keep people afraid and in control.

Sciprio

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

Peregrinus

Sciprio wrote: »

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

Ah, but it's only the folk who kill and maim on behalf of my religion who end up in heaven. In hell you'll be stuck with all the evil folk who kill and maim on behalf of all those other religions, who are a far more numerous group.

So stick with us. There'll be fewer killers and maimers, plus all those clouds and harps and suchlike. And none of those nasty lakes of burning pitch.

antiskeptic

Sciprio wrote: »

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

The problem here is one of standard.

We all recognize how useless it is to attempt to make measurements unless we have a standard to work off.

The standard to compare our varying degrees of evil is God. IF* it is the case that in him there is no darkness at all (no selfishness, no spitefulness, no greed, no malice, no lies, no deceit, etc. etc.) THEN we would have a standard of goodness infinitely beyond our experience.

"Horrible things" would include our own horrible things. The question then is how far our own horrible things and the horrible things others do fall short of the standard.

It would seem that the standard is very high. So much so, that to compare both your horrible things and the horrible things of say, a Hitler, to the standard, is to compare the distance between 2 grains of sand lying on a beach from the Sun.

It becomes irrelevant. I mean, how ridiculous for the slightly nearer-to-the-Sun grain of sand to say to the one below it "I'm so much closer to the Sun than you!"

As for getting away from all those nasty people? If you read my last post you'll see the mechanism of Hell described. It involves all of the image of God being stripped from a person: all the propensity for goodness. Similarly, the person in heaven (actually, it's a recreated and perfect Earth we'll inhabit) is stripped of all the propensity for evil they are infected with.

Hitler could be in heaven. Stripped of all that is evil about him, he will be radiant. Radical I know, but this gig isn't about how good you are (or think you are when you compare yourself to others). It's about the fact that you aren't good. And need God to sort that problem out for you.

Be brought to meet the standard by him. Or be found falling short of the standard and lose those aspects of you you think are yours but aren't actually - the image of God in which he made you.

*Of course, folk will turn to the Old Testament and argue the IF not true. That's not relevant to this discussion. I'm only pointing out your misthinking in the event the IF is true.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

It's always been weird to me that anyone is ok with this system and would be ok with enjoying heaven while others are suffering like that.

There's two aspects to it.

The first is that the person won't be a person anymore. They cease to exist in the form we knew them. Rather than being my mother, father, friend, brother, they are repulsive creatures, consisting only of that which is ugly. With nothing of the image of God left occupying them what else is left?

We have nothing to compare them with directly but might consider a Hitler or a Stalin or some other putrid human. I imagine Hitler and Stalin had some redeeming features (a.k.a. some trace of the image of God in which they were made) somewhere so even they aren't a full picture of the utter depths to which the creature in Hell is reduced to.

The second thing is that their being stripped so is a choice they have plumped for. We don't have to get into the hows and whys of this, but for the purposes of discussion this is a given.

God has set things up such that a person has a choice - to be made fully in the image of him (stripped of the infection of sin) or be stripped of the image of him. We don't get to chose what the choices are, we just get to chose from the choices on offer.

The difficulty is overcome by the fact that the person's choice is being respected. God wants that none perish, but the choice of an individual trumps his desire that they chose him. Aren't we in the middle of a discussion regarding the 8th that centres on respecting the individuals choice, no matter how unpalatable the consequences? Well follow that logic.

Or that people would argue that eternal torture, of any kind be it fire and poking or a complete destruction of the self and more of a mental torture, is a just or good thing. A good God would not visit torture on anyone, by action or inaction.

The eternal nature of it lies simply in the fact that there is no need to revisit a persons decision. They were faced with a choice, we assume (for the sake of argument) the set up the choice is perfectly fair for each and every person.

The torture isn't inflicted by God. That's the killer. It's inflicted on the person by the persons own choice: they consisted of both the image of God and sin-infection, experienced what both sides of the coin were like. And chose the latter.

Hector Savage

harrylittle wrote: »

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

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Taking it serious for a moment. Hell is a concept that exists in some form across many religions, with wildly different views and causes for going there and what happens when you get there. Other religions use other forms of coercion as well, or include secondary places like 'limbo' or purgatory.
All of these are nonsense. However you are referring to NDE's which are NEAR death experiences. None of these people actually died. None. of. them.

Leaving aside actual liars and frauds, which do exist in the NDE community, there are plenty that claim visions of something after they think they died. But as they never died those visions are hallucinations brought about due to the trauma of the event.

Just like when people claim amazing experiences when on drugs or during intensive meditation or fasting, if you mess with your brain's normal functions you get odd results.

Most religious NDEs report visions that match their religion they were either raised in or converted to. They mutually contract each other.

Biologically our brains form memories through neural pathways, so their reports are unscientific as they claim to have LEFT their bodies and still remember what occured. Even if you did leave your body you cannot have memories if not attached to your brain.

What is MOST likely is that during the period of recovery the brain scrambles to make sense of the chaos it is in and creates false memories that are then further modified with retelling and filled in. Mass hallucinations show that this is very common where false memories are concerned.

We see this in stories of alien abductions, where the SAME type of stories originally involved angels and fairies before the aliens meme came into the public consciousness about a 100 years ago. Now that Xfiles and other shows promote the 'Grays' alien so much that many alien abduction stories involve 'Grays' where before that it was more of a mix.

So to summerise. NO, there is no metaphysical hell, only what we put ourselves through. There IS a physical town in Norway that is called Hell however.

Excellent post, and OP the fact that the YouTube videos scared the bejaysus out of you is EXACTLY what religious organizations want to get you in.

It's total and utter nonsense, not a shred of evidence - NONE ZERO ZIP!

Stick around here for some sense on the matter, be careful with the Christianity forum - if you are in a vulnerable state of course, otherwise
it's a great laugh over there.

Think of this, according to Christian beliefs I am going to hell for not believing in something that has never shown any evidence of itself, I've never murdered or hurt anyone -

Yet some child rapist and murderer can get in to heaven if he repents and converts to <insert religion here> ... this alone tells you how f*cking ludicrous the whole thing is.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's two aspects to it.

The first is that the person won't be a person anymore. They cease to exist in the form we knew them. Rather than being my mother, father, friend, brother, they are repulsive creatures, consisting only of that which is ugly. With nothing of the image of God left occupying them what else is left?

Could you clarify whether or not that such a being can experience suffering and that Hell in general is unpleasant to some part of the person.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The second thing is that their being stripped so is a choice they have plumped for. We don't have to get into the hows and whys of this, but for the purposes of discussion this is a given.

God has set things up such that a person has a choice - to be made fully in the image of him (stripped of the infection of sin) or be stripped of the image of him. We don't get to chose what the choices are, we just get to chose from the choices on offer.

The difficulty is overcome by the fact that the person's choice is being respected. God wants that none perish, but the choice of an individual trumps his desire that they chose him. Aren't we in the middle of a discussion regarding the 8th that centres on respecting the individuals choice, no matter how unpalatable the consequences? Well follow that logic.

It's probably been explained to you that submission or torture is not a "choice".

Nor does God seem to be all that bothered with choice when he creates people who's personhood relies solely on what he imbues them with, then plans to strip away.

And why are they the only choices? Why can't god just make someone cease to exist? Why let them exist in eternal torture? What if someone would prefer not to exist after they die? Tough titties to their freedom to choice?

Again, it boggles the mind how you are able to rationalise this set up as anything other than evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The torture isn't inflicted by God. That's the killer. It's inflicted on the person by the persons own choice: they consisted of both the image of God and sin-infection, experienced what both sides of the coin were like. And chose the latter.

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

pauldla

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

Indeed. If they (or should that be we?) are to be reduced to some sort of subspecies could they not all be reincarnated as some form of amoebic life form and then left in an infinite reincarnation loop in some corner of infinity?

Of course there is always the possibility that this is what in fact happened in the first place.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Could you clarify whether or not that such a being can experience suffering and that Hell in general is unpleasant to some part of the person.

Indications are that the suffering is intense. The creature (I can't but avoid the notion, since personhood involves being made in the image of God) has all the capacity that we have, sans the image of God element.

It's probably been explained to you that submission or torture is not a "choice".

Its true that the full consequences aren't known at the time of choosing. A person knows neither the nature of God or the nature of anti-God when the choice is made.

No matter. The issue isn't that the full consequences be known. The issue is whether the clues in both directions open to the person are balanced.

We have no problem with the idea of making choices without having full awareness of all the consequences involved in our choice.

It's a question, like I say, of balance. And being sufficiently informed.

Since the choice involves good or evil, we have plenty of experience tasting both options such as to decide which end we want.

Nor does God seem to be all that bothered with choice when he creates people who's personhood relies solely on what he imbues them with, then plans to strip away.

We're imbued with his image and his anti-image. He'll strip away the one or the other.

That's the choice.

And why are they the only choices? Why can't god just make someone cease to exist? Why let them exist in eternal torture? What if someone would prefer not to exist after they die? Tough titties to their freedom to choice?

The choice not-God isn't a neutral one. It's enabled by the choice anti-God.

In order for there to be a choice for God, the opposite is required. Something to act as a counterfoil, a comparison. Something to push away from good with. Something to attract one towards.

I don't see how you can have a neutral morality, for example. Neutral does nothing, enables nothing.

Again, it boggles the mind how you are able to rationalise this set up as anything other than evil.

You would have to counter the rational rigorously, rather than handwave

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

God cannot make a square circle. Nor can he make a balanced choice that is imbalanced. Good is something that acts, feels, experiences .. in a particular way. It's balance is something that acts, feels, experiences in a counter way. As powerful, but opposite.

You can't have someone choose for their hearts desire and then obliterate them. You are denying them the very same thing (but opposite sign) that you are granting those who have eternal existence "in heaven"

The persons choice is uppermost. It can't be usurped just because the consequences are appalling.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indications are that the suffering is intense. The creature (I can't but avoid the notion, since personhood involves being made in the image of God) has all the capacity that we have, sans the image of God element.

Ok, so something suffers. Gotcha.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its true that the full consequences aren't known at the time of choosing. A person knows neither the nature of God or the nature of anti-God when the choice is made.

That makes it much, much worse.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're imbued with his image and his anti-image. He'll strip away the one or the other.

That's the choice.

Leaving aside this being nonsense, why does he not imbue either? Why do it at all when it leads to countless beings suffering?
What about being who would prefer not to exist? They don't get a choice, agreed?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The choice not-God isn't a neutral one. It's enabled by the choice anti-God.

In order for there to be a choice for God, the opposite is required. Something to act as a counterfoil, a comparison. Something to push away from good with. Something to attract one towards.

I don't see how you can have a neutral morality, for example. Neutral does nothing, enables nothing.

This is a lot of word salad that does not address the question I asked.

If a person did not want the reward offered by god, nor the punishment, then their choice is not respected.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God cannot make a square circle. Nor can he make a balanced choice that is imbalanced. Good is something that acts, feels, experiences .. in a particular way. It's balance is something that acts, feels, experiences in a counter way. As powerful, but opposite.

More nonsense that addresses nothing.
When god does his thing and takes away all his stuff, (that he gave in the first place), why not just remove the remaining creature? Why allow something to suffer so needlessly?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't have someone choose for their hearts desire and then obliterate them. You are denying them the very same thing (but opposite sign) that you are granting those who have eternal existence "in heaven"

None of this makes any sense.
If given the choice between eternal suffering, or submitting to a despot like this god you are arguing for, I would absolutely prefer to not exist.
Your god does not give me that option for no good reason other than he would prefer me to suffer.
This is something an evil being does and it is not choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The persons choice is uppermost. It can't be usurped just because the consequences are appalling.

So a person's choice is the most important thing. But a person isn't able to make any choice and the choice is made for them when god creates them.
Again, you must do a lot of mental gymnastics to make this sound like a good thing.

Also, after trying to decipher what you are talking about, it seems that you are claiming that people's reward in heaven is dependent on others suffering.
If that's the case, again it's horrifying and disgusting and I would have no part of heaven if given the "choice",

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so something suffers. Gotcha.

Suffering is the secondary thing. The primary thing is the exercise of choice. It comes first.

Leaving aside this being nonsense,

For the purposes of discussion we are assuming God exists and makes us in his image and that image infected by sin. Thus imbued with polar opposites, making us the way we are.

why does he not imbue either? Why do it at all when it leads to countless beings suffering?

You can't imbue the one or the other without choice. Else you've merely created a robot. Choice is essential to personhood.

What about being who would prefer not to exist? They don't get a choice, agreed?

Remember that the choice anti-God is something desired. We do evil because we chose to do it, want to do it. Good and evil are attractions. It is our will that chooses between them

The argument is whether the full consequences of our choice, not known at the time of choosing direction is fair.

Like I say, I don't see a problem there. We frequently choose without knowing full consequences and have no issue with there being consequences we didn't appreciate at the time of our choosing.

This is a lot of word salad that does not address the question I asked.

If a person did not want the reward offered by god, nor the punishment, then their choice is not respected.

There is no neutral position. We are created into the choice environment and know no other environment. We can't decide mid stream that we want neither since we've already been set on the path of choice in our very creation.

To hold as you do means not being created at all.

I don't know where that goes - like I say up top: if not created in the first place there'd be no person to prefer not being given a choice.

More nonsense that addresses nothing.

It addresses the nature of choice.

When god does his thing and takes away all his stuff, (that he gave in the first place), why not just remove the remaining creature? Why allow something to suffer so needlessly?
None of this makes any sense.
If given the choice between eternal suffering, or submitting to a despot like this god you are arguing for, I would absolutely prefer to not exist.

For the sake of argument we are supposing God being the things I described. And for his opposite to the the things I described.

We aren't given the choice between eternal joy and eternal suffering. For the sake of argument we are supposing the person making their choice based on life around them: how it is their heart responds to good (in them and others) and evil (in them and others)

In this argument, a person only comes to believe in God, and heaven and hell, after they are saved. After they have made the choice for. Similarily, they will not believe in God, heaven and hell in their making a choice against God. In both cases, the consequences are only believed in post the choice being made (after being saved, if for good. After life, if against good)

We set aside cultural Christians or people who think they believe in heaven and hell but who aren't saved.

Your god does not give me that option for no good reason other than he would prefer me to suffer.
This is something an evil being does and it is not choice.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I was dealing with choice having to be fulfilled. As I say up top, the consequences of the choice are secondary to the choice itself. Choice must be upheld for it to be a choice.

And there are but two options given.

You seem to want your cake and eat it: be able to chose contra-God (which is enabled by acting/thinking/speaking/desiring that which is contra to God. But don't want to pay the price for it.

Just let me have my fun and then not exist.

Isn't that a little dishonest? Wanting the goods, but not paying the price?

So a person's choice is the most important thing. But a person isn't able to make any choice

You don't have to be able to make any choice you want in order to make a choice. As in life, we are presented with options, we chose between them and enjoy/suffer the consequences of them

Nothing different here. Okay, the choices last forever, but as I say, the issue is balance and fairness. Not the extent of the consequences.

Once a choice balanced and fair, then I see no need for complaint. And you have perfect balance. Good and evil are polar opposites. We are supposing, for the sake of argument, that a person has a fairly balanced choice in either direction - that it doesn't matter whether they are brought up in a Christian environment or heard of Jesus and the like.

It's not important how the mechanics of that are worked out - we can just assume the choice is balanced for the sake of argument.

and the choice is made for them when god creates them.
Again, you must do a lot of mental gymnastics to make this sound like a good thing.

Again, for the sake of argument we are supposing God as I've drawn him, not as you've drawn him.

Its not really a matter of what we find good or not. Our view isn't an objective one. The issue is whether or not the choice given is balanced and fair. I would object if I thought (like the Calvinists do, with their predestination-to-salvation gig) that the choice was skewed or non-existant.

Also, after trying to decipher what you are talking about, it seems that you are claiming that people's reward in heaven is dependent on others suffering.
If that's the case, again it's horrifying and disgusting and I would have no part of heaven if given the "choice",

Reward in heaven isn't a function of others suffering. The bit you quoted merely says that choice is the uppermost consideration. Not the consequences of the choice.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no neutral position. We are created into the choice environment and know no other environment. We can't decide mid stream that we want neither since we've already been set on the path of choice in our very creation.

Here's the fundemental problem you are waffling your way around.
You are saying here that we don't have a choice.
God choose to make us. We had no choice in that.
We can't choose not to play his game because God has already chose that we are playing. We have no choice in that.
We can't reject his messed up disgusting reward. We have no choice there either.

The choice is between submitting to a tyrant or eternal torture. This is not a choice either.

I could lead a perfectly good and holy life, but you are saying that if I don't submit to your particular god, for whatever reason, I get, and deserve eternal suffering.
That's not a good thing.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reward in heaven isn't a function of others suffering. The bit you quoted merely says that choice is the uppermost consideration. Not the consequences of the choice.

Waffle.
Could heaven exist if god instead just erased beings from existence rather than let them suffer?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Waffle.
Could heaven exist if god instead just erased beings from existence rather than let them suffer?

Hmm. You're not dealing with the problem presented to you. You're merely sidestepping it

A person makes a choice from a balanced set of proposals

The consequences of their choice are delivered to them in full, whichever way they choose.

Not delivering the consequences of their choice obliterates their having chosen in the first place. Which obliterates them being persons in the first place.

Since delivering the consequences of their choice is an essential part of the process, I don't see how your proposal can work. The need to annhilate the hell bound simply doesn't arise. Unless you can find a way around the problem presented to you.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since delivering the consequences of their choice is an essential part of the process, I don't see how your proposal can work. The need to annhilate the hell bound simply doesn't arise. Unless you can find a way around the problem presented to you.

So Heaven cannot exist without beings suffering.

No reason god couldn't have made the choice between oblivion and heaven and leaving eternal torture out of the equation entirely...

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

You are saying here that we don't have a choice.

I am saying we have a choice. Good or evil.

God choose to make us. We had no choice in that.

True

We can't choose not to play his game because God has already chose that we are playing. We have no choice in that.

True

We can't reject his messed up disgusting reward. We have no choice there either.

For the sake of argument we are supposing my version of God, not yours. IF it is the case that God is all that is good (selfless, loving, forgiving, patient, kind, generous) then the only thing that would find that objectionable, is it's counter.

The choice is between submitting to a tyrant or eternal torture. This is not a choice either.

As above.

I could lead a perfectly good and holy life, but you are saying that if I don't submit to your particular god, for whatever reason, I get, and deserve eternal suffering.

For the sake of argument we are dealing with God as described. I'm not supposing you have to accept him in any "I accept the Christian God" sense. Abraham never heard of Jesus and I'm pretty sure there'll be all sorts in heaven: atheists, muslims, Catholics. And am pretty sure folk who identify as Christian will be in Hell

This is a matter of the heart, not religion.

Anyway. Nobody can live a holy life. We all sin. That's part and parcel of the stage-setting environment we live in. Forces to attract us to good. Forces to attract us to ill. Us running back and forth between the two. Us plumping ultimately for the one or the other.

It has nothing to do with how you behave. Indeed, it can be by behaving sinfully that we exposes ourselves to the draw of good (in that we come to hate what our sinful selves are).

It's why the drumbeat pattern of scripture and of life around us finds the down, the destitute turning to God. It is when they've come to the end of their own ability to plow their own furrow as they see fit, independent of God, that the turn comes.

The atheists are right on this front at least. God is indeed a crutch. But only for those who recognise they are in need of one.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So Heaven cannot exist without beings suffering.

No reason god couldn't have made the choice between oblivion and heaven and leaving eternal torture out of the equation entirely...

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

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am saying we have a choice. Good or evil.

True

True

For the sake of argument we are supposing my version of God, not yours. IF it is the case that God is all that is good (selfless, loving, forgiving, patient, kind, generous) then the only thing that would find that objectionable, is it's counter.

As above.

If those things are true, your God cannot be selfless, loving, forgiving, patient kind or generous.
No being that is any or all of things would allow suffering.
No such being would make a system where people suffer for any reasoin
No such being would force anyone to choose between torture and submission.

If your God exists and this is how the afterlife works, then he is evil.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.