hell, fiery pit or just a place without 'god"?

[goodwithoutgod]

A couple of theology classes ago I took one called Christian spirituality vision, and it's text had an interesting point of view I found intriguing. The story of "hell" being a fiery pit of eternal pain seems to be actually an interpolation as this is what they presented on that subject in accordance with christian doctrine;

The hell they are talking about doesn't even exist in that capacity under Christian doctrine. Hell is allegedly just a place devoid of god, thus devoid of good, no fire, no pitchforks, no little demons running around, no eternity in pain.


"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell " that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."


Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 " describing hell.

So my question is for the biblical believers, do you think it is satan with the horns and pitchforks and fire and eternal misery and pain? Or do you understand that it is just another parable written to create an image, to send a message? Do you take it literally, or not? Thoughts? counters?

My opinion of course doesn't matter as it is just a story, like a spongebob cartoon, or the musings of bigfoot, or poems by fairies, but I am interested in what the faithful think on this perspective of hell...

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 11 by atheist buddy]

Prisons are only necessary in societies designed, created, and run by imperfect politicians. If our leaders were perfect, they would be able to make the education system so great, the job market so plentiful, rehabilitation so efficient, that, without sacrificing any citizen's free will, they'd not need to have prisons. Nobody would want to or need to be a criminal.

If God directly ran the afterlife, then he would do so in such a perfect way that the prison of hell would not be necessary.

I don't think you are focussing on my point. Hell is a necessity of being good. If you are good then you will create hell. We do this all the time. We meet someone we don't like and we cast them out of our lives. It has nothing to do with the prison itself. Imagine you had a child and there was a wild dog in the room, would you remove the wild dog from the room or leave it there? What would a good being do? Is there a situation where you would ever leave a child with a wild dog?

Ideally a prison is empty, ideally hell is empty but hell is necessary if you want to be good. What isn't necessary is heaven. Only a good being would create heaven and hell, an evil being would create hell and more hell.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 11 by atheist buddy]

Prisons are only necessary in societies designed, created, and run by imperfect politicians. If our leaders were perfect, they would be able to make the education system so great, the job market so plentiful, rehabilitation so efficient, that, without sacrificing any citizen's free will, they'd not need to have prisons. Nobody would want to or need to be a criminal.

If God directly ran the afterlife, then he would do so in such a perfect way that the prison of hell would not be necessary.

I don't think you are focussing on my point. Hell is a necessity of being good. If you are good then you will create hell. We do this all the time. We meet someone we don't like and we cast them out of our lives. It has nothing to do with the prison itself. Imagine you had a child and there was a wild dog in the room, would you remove the wild dog from the room or leave it there? What would a good being do? Is there a situation where you would ever leave a child with a wild dog?

If I was an infinitely good dog trainer, then the wild dog would become absolutely safe and tame in a matter of minutes of hanging out with me, and leaving him with a child would be completely safe.

Ideally a prison is empty, ideally hell is empty but hell is necessary if you want to be good. What isn't necessary is heaven. Only a good being would create heaven and hell, an evil being would create hell and more hell.

You know, I think there is not going to be an end to our conversation, nor to the conversation I'm having with Dianaiad on this thread.

I think I'll politely withdraw from this line of discussion, because, with all due respect to you and Dianaiad, we're all making stuff up as we go along, here. You make up your analogies of the wild dog, to illustrate your point, I make up my analogies about the infinitely good dog trainer to illustrate my point, Dianaaid makes up her analogies to make her point, but all of it is meaningless, because we're making analogies for something that we cannot actually text/examine/explore/look at, to verify if the arguments and analogies we create accurately portray the reality.

It's as though we were debating who would win in a 100 meter dash, Superman or Flash, or who can do more pushups, Captain America or Spiderman.

The true debate to have before we engange in the one we've been exploring is this one: What reason is there to believe there is a God, a Heaven and a Hell?

In other words, what do you believe, and why?

[squint]

atheist buddy:
This is clearly a faith statement.

It's not something you can demonstrate. It's just something you believe, kind of how some people believe the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant turtle.

For some, for many, it's an experienced matter. Quite different.

Unfortunately for you, the idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God isn't just completely devoid of any evidentiary support, it's also logically impossible.

Using your definition of logic. Let's understand that 'human logic' has it's limits. Human logic can not logically be all that is possible logic. That is not the only logic available.

It is just as illogical to experience and then use limited human logic to deny the experience. It doesn't work nor is that method logical.

If God is omniscient, he knows everything that is ever going to happen, including everything he's ever going to decide to do.

Using a limited form of logic I might say that only God knows the entirety of what He Is and consists of. Everyone else is just guessing, just as you and I are.

If everything God is ever going to do is predetermined by his omniscience, then God is not omnipotent, because he doesn't have the power to do anything outside of what he already knew he was going to do.

Presuming of course that God is subject to your logic impositions. I might say that is not a logical conclusion on your part.

God doesn't have the power to change his mind. He doesn't have the power to make decisions. He doesn't have free will.

Well, now you're just into the standard skeptic unmeaning rhetoric.

Theology in general contemplates matters that are outside of empirical (hard and fast) evidence. Mercy for example is a trait that is exhibited by mankind, yet it is an intangible matter, internally, of the heart. Same with love, grace, faith, judgments. All of these originate apart from hardline tangible proofs. None of it can be put in a box or dissected. It's a different genre of study. Similar to philosophy but unique in it's own ways.

Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. Hence an omniscient omnipotent God cannot exist.

It is only illogical on your part to claim exclusivity of logic. It is even more illogical to say your (or any) limited forms of logic constitute the entirety of logic.

Truthful logic always makes room for the ever potential now unknown or undiscovered to become known or discovered information, therefore our human logic is always subject to 'possible change.'

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 33 by squint]

"Theology in general contemplates matters that are outside of empirical (hard and fast) evidence."

I agree, theology contemplates a transcendental existence, otherwise known as made up. We can sit around all day and make up cool things like "what if we could walk on water" or "what if the creator of everything is a giant great pumpkin that glides through space in the 7th dimension", or "what if a sponge could talk", or "wouldnt it be neat if bigfoot was real" etc scenarios all day, but it doesnt give any of it credence when it has zero evidence outside of highly subjective philosophical musings..

"Truthful logic always makes room for the ever potential now unknown or undiscovered to become known or discovered information, therefore our human logic is always subject to 'possible change"

that is a neat concept, but in the real world some like to utilize substantiated methods of epistemology in order to contemplate the real world around us. Again, we can sit around all day and play "what if...."

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 33 by squint]

"Theology in general contemplates matters that are outside of empirical (hard and fast) evidence."

I agree, theology contemplates a transcendental existence, otherwise known as made up. We can sit around all day and make up cool things like "what if we could walk on water" or "what if the creator of everything is a giant great pumpkin that glides through space in the 7th dimension", or "what if a sponge could talk", or "wouldnt it be neat if bigfoot was real" etc scenarios all day, but it doesnt give any of it credence when it has zero evidence outside of highly subjective philosophical musings..

"Truthful logic always makes room for the ever potential now unknown or undiscovered to become known or discovered information, therefore our human logic is always subject to 'possible change"

that is a neat concept, but in the real world some like to utilize substantiated methods of epistemology in order to contemplate the real world around us. Again, we can sit around all day and play "what if...."

Yes, we can, and thank God we can.

In fact, the scientific method rather depends upon the phrase "I wonder what..." and "what if?"

Isaac Asimov, who was one of the champions of 'what if?" said, rather famously, that "the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny..' "

"What if we could walk on water?" results in races in the swimming pool at Cal Tech between groups of students who design methods to do just that.

"What if God wants us to build something that touches Him?"
...................and so we have pyramids and cathedrals, and let's face it, we don't have any ancient buildings still standing that were not built to honor deities, and all that modern science bases architecture and building on came from the 'what if's' asked by theists.

"What if...."

Right up there with 'that's funny.'

No matter what field one is examining at the time.

[Wordleymaster1]

A couple of theology classes ago I took one called Christian spirituality vision, and it's text had an interesting point of view I found intriguing. The story of "hell" being a fiery pit of eternal pain seems to be actually an interpolation as this is what they presented on that subject in accordance with christian doctrine;

The hell they are talking about doesn't even exist in that capacity under Christian doctrine. Hell is allegedly just a place devoid of god, thus devoid of good, no fire, no pitchforks, no little demons running around, no eternity in pain.


"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell " that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."


Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 " describing hell.

So my question is for the biblical believers, do you think it is satan with the horns and pitchforks and fire and eternal misery and pain? Or do you understand that it is just another parable written to create an image, to send a message? Do you take it literally, or not? Thoughts? counters?

My opinion of course doesn't matter as it is just a story, like a spongebob cartoon, or the musings of bigfoot, or poems by fairies, but I am interested in what the faithful think on this perspective of hell...

What good is a god without suffereing? It makes logical sense that a god would indeed need a place to punish offenders and nonbelievers. There is no motivation to worship it without some sort of torture and punishment. Personally, a place without a god would be great for me. That's just me though

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 36 by Wordleymaster1]

A very masochistic theory the creation of religion isn't it? Life time of bowing and scraping as unworthy peasants begging the mighty god to take pity upon our souls and grade us on our worship of him...seems awful egocentric I have always thought for a life creating force to create life with the option of choice, knowing that it is something they cannot overcome, so they live as miserable beings racked with guilt, and then demand they worship you and check all the appropriate boxes so that upon your death, you can "live" happily ever after in heaven....

[ttruscott]

...

What good is a god without suffereing? It makes logical sense that a god would indeed need a place to punish offenders and nonbelievers. There is no motivation to worship it without some sort of torture and punishment. Personally, a place without a god would be great for me. That's just me though

Not all Christians believe that GOD need evil for anything nor needed a place to punish offenders and non-believers. In other words, we believe that all HIS goals for our creation, all HIS reasons for creating us could have been fulfilled without sin or evil, without any punishment because there were not offenders and without any non-believers and therefore totally free of any and all suffering.

Therefore these Christians believe that GOD created us ingenuously innocent but with the ability to make true free will decisions so that our love and holiness would be true but by the same free will, some of HIS creation created evil and suffering and needing a place to be sequestered from polite society.

All who chose by their free will to be free from GOD for eternity will get that desire.

Taking measures to deal with evil and suffering IF it should ever be created by the free will choice of one or more of HIS creatures, does not mean that HE needs it or wants it or any such thing. What good is a GOD without suffering? Perfectly good, the measure of all that is good, without whom we would have no idea of goodness at all.

Peace, Ted

Mods: Though this seems to me to possibly be the kind of thing that gets me in trouble for preaching, let me point out that this poster has offered a sarcastic personal opinion that implies we believe our God needs to cause suffering to be GOD, with no proof offered that this is true or even a true belief of ours and with no real advancement of the debate...all without mod action...

[agnosticatheist]

Therefore these Christians believe that GOD created us ingenuously innocent but with the ability to make true free will decisions so that our love and holiness would be true but by the same free will, some of HIS creation created evil and suffering and needing a place to be sequestered from polite society.

Why not just mercifully wipe their souls from existence?

You believe your God is merciful right? Where is the mercy in sending people to eternal suffering when he has the power to simply wipe their souls from existence?

For me personally, it's like this: I have managed to get comfortable with this universe. Most days it depresses me, and makes me want to stop existing, but I still have found a way to cope with life. I'm good doing what I want and living how I want to live for however long I have left. Maybe that's 2 days, maybe that's 20 years, maybe that's 200 years. At the end when my time is up, if I am found unworthy of being in Heaven, I don't expect to be let in, I would just like to be wiped from existence. That's cool with me.

Why is being wiped from existence so much to ask from an all-powerful God?

All who chose by their free will to be free from GOD for eternity will get that desire.

You and other Christians say stuff like this a lot. If people want to be happy/fulfilled *and* free from God, do they really get what they want if they are condemned to eternal suffering?

Taking measures to deal with evil and suffering IF it should ever be created by the free will choice of one or more of HIS creatures, does not mean that HE needs it or wants it or any such thing.

If eternal suffering is a potential consequence of free will, would it not be better to not create in the first place?

I would sacrifice my shot at going to Heaven if it would keep God from ever creating any of this mess. If I had a say in this matter, I would say don't create. I don't care if I wouldn't exist and I would not have a shot at Heaven. I am ok with not getting that shot if it means no one will go to Hell. I don't care if those people who might choose Hell have free will.

What good is a GOD without suffering?

Is there suffering in Heaven? If not, what good is God in Heaven? It seems that there would have to be suffering in all realities (our universe, Heaven, etc) for your point here to be valid.

Perfectly good, the measure of all that is good, without whom we would have no idea of goodness at all.

God is not here, and yet we still have the capacity to understand moral concepts, make moral judgments, etc.

[ttruscott]

Therefore these Christians believe that GOD created us ingenuously innocent but with the ability to make true free will decisions so that our love and holiness would be true but by the same free will, some of HIS creation created evil and suffering and needing a place to be sequestered from polite society.

Why not just mercifully wipe their souls from existence?

This is the way a Christian thinks: IF the GOD of mercy COULD have righteously done this, the HE would have done so but since there is no mention of this then it must not be possible - perhaps because HE created us as immortal spirits (not bodies)?

Why is being wiped from existence so much to ask from an all-powerful God?

It is not a question of power (which some here seem to think solves all) since HE can do no evil nor break HIS promise nor do an injustice so if wiping someone from existence goes against any of these things or others of the same ilk I haven't listed, then too bad, so sad, out of luck for a power fix.

All who chose by their free will to be free from GOD for eternity will get that desire.

You and other Christians say stuff like this a lot. If people want to be happy/fulfilled *and* free from God, do they really get what they want if they are condemned to eternal suffering?

Very perceptive - no, they wanted free of GOD with no consequences but they only get free of GOD with all the consequences they were warned about by GOD but rejected as the ravings of a liar and ego maniac.

Taking measures to deal with evil and suffering IF it should ever be created by the free will choice of one or more of HIS creatures, does not mean that HE needs it or wants it or any such thing.

If eternal suffering is a potential consequence of free will, would it not be better to not create in the first place?

I guess not, reality of being and the necessity of our free will argues that GOD does not agree with you.

What good is a GOD without suffering?

Is there suffering in Heaven? If not, what good is God in Heaven? It seems that there would have to be suffering in all realities (our universe, Heaven, etc) for your point here to be valid.

Nope, it is only valid for here on earth where some are being cleansed of their evil by their suffering - heaven is for them when this period of suffering is over and no evil exists in HIS created reality anywhere ever again.

Perfectly good, the measure of all that is good, without whom we would have no idea of goodness at all.

God is not here, and yet we still have the capacity to understand moral concepts, make moral judgments, etc.

You have no proof GOD is not here, only a the lack of evidence suggesting that you can't or haven't seen HIM yet. My unprovable claim is that GOD is here and that is how we have morals in a supposedly material existence.

Peace, Ted