About hell.

[Ziggy Stardust]

God wants us to believe in him because we want to, not because we fear the consequences of not believing in him, since then it becomes a weighted choice, not one of free will. This is contradicting to loving someone. You cannot be forced or treathened to love someone. So the existance of hell as the place where you get sent when you have been bad in your life is impossible in our view. It would be unneccesary cruelty. The denial of being in the eternal presence of God after you die, is the consequence of not having faith, not eternal torture. You can reap the reward of having faith, you can't reap anything from not having it
- A catholic I know, about my future in her opinion

What do you think about that specific view? Does it make sense?

Please be a little more contructive than: "Hell is created by man to scare people into believeing", or: "Hell does exist, and you dirty atheists are trying to reason your way out of it".

 

[Kozmos]

"Hell does exist, and you dirty atheists are trying to reason your way out of it"

Hahaha reason.

 

[Halcyon]

The argument basically boils down to "Daddy hits you because he loves you". It's perverse and cruel, and entirely unjustifiable. Daddy only beats you because you misbehave! It's your fault!

The problem of Hell is one of many theological contradictions between the idea that God is all-powerful and that he is wise and kind and good. Either he can't do anything to alleviate the suffering of the fallen, or he chooses to let the majority of humanity suffer pointlessly and eternally. Most people prefer not to think about that.

 

[warpus]

Hell is obviously a plot device conjured up to have a more convincing argument when trying to get people to convert.

 

[Bill3000]

The argument basically boils down to "Daddy hits you because he loves you". It's perverse and cruel, and entirely unjustifiable. Daddy only beats you because you misbehave! It's your fault!

I really wouldn't call the form of hell that the OP describes as eternal torture, though - just a denial of a reward.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I really wouldn't call the form of hell that the OP describes as eternal torture, though - just a denial of a reward.

Indeed.

Because I never understood the fire and brimstone version of Hell. It clashed with my understanding of christianity. I do understand the view I presented in the OP. That does make more sense to me.

 

[Elrohir]

God wants us to believe in him because we want to, not because we fear the consequences of not believing in him, since then it becomes a weighted choice, not one of free will. This is contradicting to loving someone. You cannot be forced or treathened to love someone. So the existance of hell as the place where you get sent when you have been bad in your life is impossible in our view. It would be unneccesary cruelty. The denial of being in the eternal presence of God after you die, is the consequence of not having faith, not eternal torture. You can reap the reward of having faith, you can't reap anything from not having it
- A catholic I know, about my future in her opinion

What do you think about that specific view? Does it make sense?

Please be a little more contructive than: "Hell is created by man to scare people into believeing", or: "Hell does exist, and you dirty atheists are trying to reason your way out of it".

It doesn't sound particularly coherent to me. Does she think that all human beings have eternal souls? Well, if those that don't accept Christ don't go to hell, then where do they go? If they are destroyed (Annihilationism) then human souls aren't eternal after all. If they are allowed into heaven anyway, then why believe in Christ? It's unnecessary, and you might as well just go have fun and not worry about following Christ because you'll end up in the same place anyway. It doesn't sound like she's thought it through entirely. And personally, I pretty much define hell as being completely outside of the presence of God. If God is the source of everything good, and people are taken away from that and left alone, what do you think they would create? What do people create without a good, restraining influence? Hell.

Now, if she wanted to use Origen's and Plato's argument, that punishment is meant to be corrective, not retributive, and therefore hell does not necessarily have to be eternal, that would make a bit more sense to me. That's sort of Universalist, though I imagine since she's Catholic she could probably make it fit in with Purgatory somehow.

Have either of you read the Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis? I know he was Anglican, not Catholic, but I would recommend it on this subject, it is very good.

 

[sercer88]

However, God is all-happiness. Once you are in hell, your soul realizes what it means to be happy since it can "see" God and what it is to be happy. However, since it is not partaking in this utter utopia, it becomes aggravated, tortured, etc, etc...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I kindly request that the participants in this thread go and read The Great Divorce in order that they could learn to entertain non-stereotypical notions of Hell.

 

[Bill3000]

It doesn't sound particularly coherent to me. Does she think that all human beings have eternal souls? Well, if those that don't accept Christ don't go to hell, then where do they go? If they are destroyed (Annihilationism) then human souls aren't eternal after all. If they are allowed into heaven anyway, then why believe in Christ? It's unnecessary, and you might as well just go have fun and not worry about following Christ because you'll end up in the same place anyway. It doesn't sound like she's thought it through entirely. And personally, I pretty much define hell as being completely outside of the presence of God. If God is the source of everything good, and people are taken away from that and left alone, what do you think they would create? What do people create without a good, restraining influence? Hell.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what she is saying. She is saying that it isn't a punishment for people who do bad things, but rather, self-exclusion, and that it isn't a physical place. Much like what Pope JP2 said:

"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy"

Though she seems to not put much into the emptiness aspect.

 

[Elrohir]

Have either of you read the Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis? I know he was Anglican, not Catholic, but I would recommend it on this subject, it is very good.

I kindly request that the participants in this thread go and read The Great Divorce in order that they could learn to entertain non-stereotypical notions of Hell.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what she is saying. She is saying that it isn't a punishment for people who do bad things, but rather, self-exclusion, and that it isn't a physical place. Much like what Pope JP2 said:

But what does that mean, exactly? If you really don't know what happens after death, then fine, but if you're going to say "This is what happens" you should be able to explain it in a more in depth manner than that. Do the souls just sort of float around? Are they conscious? Can they choose to leave their self-imposed exile? Etc, etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It doesn't sound particularly coherent to me. Does she think that all human beings have eternal souls? Well, if those that don't accept Christ don't go to hell, then where do they go? If they are destroyed (Annihilationism) then human souls aren't eternal after all.

I think she meant they are in a state of oblivion. Not sure, we mainly talked about the contradiction of having a punishment, even that of seeing the other souls enjoying themselves.

If they are allowed into heaven anyway, then why believe in Christ?

Because there is more to loving Christ than the reward you get when you die.

It's unnecessary, and you might as well just go have fun and not worry about following Christ because you'll end up in the same place anyway. It doesn't sound like she's thought it through entirely.

If someone believe in Christ because they want to end up in heaven, you consider that a good reason? It sounds like you are the one who has not thought things through.

Wether or not you go to heaven should not matter in her view. You do not love Christ because of any other rewards than spiritual fullfillment. If there would be no reward for loving Christ, you would not love him? This is exacly why it's called unconditional love. Because rewards and/or punishment should not matter

And personally, I pretty much define hell as being completely outside of the presence of God. If God is the source of everything good, and people are taken away from that and left alone, what do you think they would create? What do people create without a good, restraining influence? Hell.

I can understand the first part, being outside the presence of God. but the view I presented isn't all roses either. If the soul remained outside the presence of God and was aware of his situation, one could think that God might grant them access after all. When there's existance, there is hope. Being in oblivion does not grant that option.

Now, if she wanted to use Origen's and Plato's argument, that punishment is meant to be corrective, not retributive, and therefore hell does not necessarily have to be eternal, that would make a bit more sense to me. That's sort of Universalist, though I imagine since she's Catholic she could probably make it fit in with Purgatory somehow.

Have either of you read the Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis? I know he was Anglican, not Catholic, but I would recommend it on this subject, it is very good.

No. In light of this thread I do not intend to. I want to hear your opinion.

I kindly request that the participants in this thread go and read The Great Divorce in order that they could learn to entertain non-stereotypical notions of Hell.

Why? I presented a view and you are free to comment on it in your own words.

 

[Leonel]

If I recall, Hell isn't the fire and brimstone place that's shown in movies and tv but more of a place where a person can experience what life would be like without God at all, which allegedly is pretty bland and depressing.

 

[puglover]

I kindly request that the participants in this thread go and read The Great Divorce in order that they could learn to entertain non-stereotypical notions of Hell.

QFT again. Really, I think the quote from the original post is more right than wrong. The stereotypical version of Hell is not very scriptural at all, and it is the denial of the goodness of God that causes the suffering in Hell, not any kind of eternal torture.

If I recall, Hell isn't the fire and brimstone place that's shown in movies and tv but more of a place where a person can experience what life would be like without God at all, which allegedly is pretty bland and depressing.

More than bland and depressing. Imagine getting all the bloodthirsty, moral-less conquerors of this world together in one world, and how people would be forced to always live in fear of their neighbors.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm afraid I am not making myself clear

Happens more often than not. This thread is about hell, in whatever shape or form, but I might have also made the topic heaven. Because a reward after you die works the same way as a punishment. In my opinion these concepts lessen the unconditionality of the Love for God and Jesus.

Do you agree/disagree?

Really, I think the quote from the original post is more right than wrong.

Feel free to quote it

edit: and a little background. She did not tell me what heaven is like, or what hell is like. Or if they even exist. As she said it, heaven is what I feel here on Earth when I feel the presence of God. In fact, about my future after I die she simply said: who knows but God?

Also, I am typing this from memory and translating it as well, so the technicalities and wording might be different, but as I tried to explain in this post, the technicalities are not what I am interested in.

 

[puglover]

How would the afterlife lessen the unconditionality of God's love? After all, it isn't by our works, but by what Christ did for us that we are allowed into heaven in the first place.

 

[Bill3000]

QFT again. Really, I think the quote from the original post is more right than wrong. The stereotypical version of Hell is not very scriptural at all, and it is the denial of the goodness of God that causes the suffering in Hell, not any kind of eternal torture.

What defines orthodoxy is not what is found in scripture, but the orthodox tradition. Scripture backs up the tradition. And yes, this still happens in protestant circles as well.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How would the afterlife lessen the unconditionality of God's love? After all, it isn't by our works, but by what Christ did for us that we are allowed into heaven in the first place.

Because the concepts of heaven and hell in the afterlife introduce .... conditions?

edit: And I am talking about love for God, not God's love for us.

 

[Halcyon]

I'm well aware that there are many alternative concepts of Hell, even within the Book itself. Paul describes it as an inherently painful separation, foremost, whilst Revelations piles on the sulphur. Whether either can be trusted is a pick-your-prophets problem.

The OP's friend's hell may be a punishment more like Tantalus' than Prometheus', but is still in essence a cruel punishment. Here, look at this wonderful thing that you can never ever have, but cannot help but want more than anything.

The only difference between the OP's friend's vision of hell and the traditional fiery painful hell is the kind of torture used. One is forever subjected to physical pain, the other is forever subjected to the addict's suffering - eternal withdrawal of the worst kind. Is that really any nicer?

Edit:

More than bland and depressing. Imagine getting all the bloodthirsty, moral-less conquerors of this world together in one world, and how people would be forced to always live in fear of their neighbors.

This is different from the real world... how, exactly? In reality we band together to protect each other from those few who are both stronger than us and willing to leverage their might. It's not as though God intervenes to stop callous warlord-types from taking things over, is it? I doubt that a world without the pious would be that different from the one we have, in either respect.

 

[Kozmos]

So hell would be like an emo band playing over and over into eternity?