hell - Page 7

revots33 · #61 02-04-2007, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's the saying that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. And I guess we could say that the opposite of life isn't death, but non-being. So it's not hard for me to make the leap and say the opposite of heaven isn't hell, but eternal non-existence. Although I think if we could look at eternal life as being a possibility and then seeing someone not choose it - it would appear as eternal hell or eternal damnation - a state of non-being you can't come back from.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is typical of most Christians. When their religion preaches something indefensible, they simply make up their own interpretation.

If we're inventing our own definitions, I'll just say hell is say, 20 years watching Hee-Haw reruns.

Saying that hell is simply "non-existence" is saying that hell doesn't exist at all. And since the bible and Jesus go through great pains to stress that hell DOES exist, I don't see how this could be correct.

madnak · #62 02-06-2007, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
finally madnak, do you believe that people should be punished for breaking the law? do you believe in punshiment that is proportional to your (wrongful) deeds? it seems that you think finite punishment is ok, do you think infinite reward is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people "should" be punished at all. I think punishment is an unfortunate necessity in the real world as a deterrent, and I think containment strategies (also unfortunate necessities) are only incidentally "punishment." Ideally, if we lived in a world without our constraints, then there would be no punishment (there would be no criminals either, in such a world).

Regarding infinite "reward," I see no problem with it. Infinite suffering is bad, infinite happiness is good. How are you not understanding my position here? It's really not that complicated. It's a philosophy I call "benevolence," maybe your God should learn about it sometime.

vhawk01 · #63 02-06-2007, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
finally madnak, do you believe that people should be punished for breaking the law? do you believe in punshiment that is proportional to your (wrongful) deeds? it seems that you think finite punishment is ok, do you think infinite reward is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people "should" be punished at all. I think punishment is an unfortunate necessity in the real world as a deterrent, and I think containment strategies (also unfortunate necessities) are only incidentally "punishment." Ideally, if we lived in a world without our constraints, then there would be no punishment (there would be no criminals either, in such a world).

Regarding infinite "reward," I see no problem with it. Infinite suffering is bad, infinite happiness is good. How are you not understanding my position here? It's really not that complicated. It's a philosophy I call "benevolence," maybe your God should learn about it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it wouldn't be just. Infinite reward for finite good deeds (whether these good deeds are merely accepting Jesus Christ or actual, meaningful good deeds) are probably never DESERVING of infinite reward. It would be benevolent, but unjust, for God to give them to us, wouldn't it?

madnak · #64 02-06-2007, 10:06 AM

Unjust? Is it unjust for me to give someone a Christmas present? Since when does a person need to earn a gift before it becomes "just?"

madnak · #65 02-06-2007, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please. I'm glad to address the specifics you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Rev. 14:11

vhawk01 · #66 02-06-2007, 10:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Unjust? Is it unjust for me to give someone a Christmas present? Since when does a person need to earn a gift before it becomes "just?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes? I mean, if you think that the work they do in making your life better, or whatever, justifies them getting a gift, thats one thing. But randomly giving a gift to one person and not another seems unjust. Also, giving people rewards that are far out of whack with what they merit seems also unjust. Unjust has a negative connotation but I don't think it needs to. Most definitions refer to being rightly awarded, deserved, in accordance with standards, equitable, etc.

Of course, you could just have the crazy notion that human beings, in and of themselves, DESERVE infinite reward. It seems like a wacky leap, to think that the entire species is somehow worthy of happiness and reward, just for being human, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

madnak · #67 02-06-2007, 10:20 AM

It does. And screw "justice," anyhow. The concept only has use based on the limitations of our existence here.

vhawk01 · #68 02-06-2007, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It does. And screw "justice," anyhow. The concept only has use based on the limitations of our existence here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same with so many personality traits used to describe a god. How can benevolence have any meaning if you are perfectly just?

madnak · #69 02-06-2007, 11:13 AM

It can't. Justice is a contingent human concept that can't even have a universal definition (because its definition depends on specific standards). A God who is perfectly just is not only perfectly contingent, but he can never be perfectly benevolent.

Arguably, the standards of benevolence vary as well, but mostly in terms of superficialities. The difference between pleasure and pain is clear enough, even if it's hard to describe.

Skidoo · #70 02-06-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please. I'm glad to address the specifics you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Rev. 14:11

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, what is described in this verse is not the "hell" of the everyday sinner, but rather the fate of a particular set of people in a specific timeframe to be carried out on the surface of the earth, not underground. So already we're not talking about the famous eternal barbecue.

Second, this passage, like so many in Bible, uses the familiar figurative language of a contemporary genre. And it quotes the Old Testament.

"And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever." (Isaiah 34:9-10)

This passage by Isaiah refers to he destruction of Idumaea which now lies in ruins, and the fires are out. Again, not an eternal process, but a permanent result. Smoke going up "forever" means the combustion proceeded to completion and its consequences are irreversible.