Death Thread II: The Second Death.

[Tigranes]

Death Thread II: The Second Death.​

Welcome to my second Real Discussion thread about the only thing that really matters at the end: the end. In this installment I will present my thoughts about the Second Death, also known as Hell in simple English.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

In my First Death Thread we firmly established that death -- regular, visible death -- does exist.

What about Hell? What about this invisible death after death? Is Hell real? Does it exist in some invisible reality which we can only experience after we experience our first death? Is it reasonable to expect that something like hell must exist somewhere?

Can it be possible that everything you do matters? Everything you ever did and forgot or tried to forget or still remember and feel proud or ashamed about, everything will become a subject of evaluation. Can it be possible that every bad thing you did will be examined and shown to have potentially infinitely many bad consequences which will cause your consciousness burning pain again and again in a place where time and end do not exist?

 

[Daw]

"Having 7 deaths is impossible, having 1 is inevitable." (a saying)

I think that when a person dies, he/she dies. That's over then for that individual. I don't believe in afterlife or bodiless consciousness.

However, there are similarities between parents and children. So, the individual's offspring is that individual's extension/prolongation in life.

Generations of my ancestors made this world for me, their extension, to live in and they contributed to its advantages and flaws with their deeds, thoughts (or thoughtlessness and inactivity). I, in turn, contribute to thoughts, deeds, thoughtlessness and inactivity of my generation that will form the future world for my successors to live it.

That future world, formed partly with what I think or not, do or not, say/write or not, etc., will be heaven or hell for myself and my ancestors living in my offspring (one of them can be oddly resembling myself actually, who knows?).

...not that I personally will ever see it or feel anything about it after I'm dead as individual.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Thomas Jefferson

TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH MONTICELLO
January 17 1825

DEAR SIR,
I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was therefore well pleased to see in your first proof sheet that it was said to be not the production of St John but of Cerinthus a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition and come they from whomsoever they may I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge therefore from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in the heavens above or on the earth beneath can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation and pardon me if I say with the candor of friendship that I think your time too valuable and your understanding of too high an order to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive I hope also that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation couched at the same time in terms which He would know were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations I hope you will see proofs of the confidence esteem and which I entertain for you.

 

[Tigranes]

^^ Source of skepticism (Jefferson) may be revered by skeptics as much as source of faith (God) is revered by reasonable believer. Who exactly has written down one piece of the Message can be debated and reviewed in the light of the new archaeological evidence. But as your quote say -- it will not change anything. It all comes down to the existence of personal God -- if He wants to get a certain information across to mankind -- He will find one way or another, inspiring chosen writers. Or doing what the ultimate claim of Christianity says He did-- visiting this Earth in Person. It does not get any more powerful than that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What about Hell?

Hell is the stick, Heaven is the carrot which was invented by people who were recruiting.

Is it reasonable to expect that something like hell must exist somewhere?

Nope, it is completely unreasonable or irrational if you like.

 

[warpus]

Is Hell real? Does it exist in some invisible reality which we can only experience after we experience our first death?

After thousands of years of civilization we still have 0 evidence that such a thing exist. It's got to be wishful thinking.

Having said that, you never know. Even unicorns might have existed at some point.. maybe. probably not, but I've got to admit that there is a tiny possibility that they exist in some way or another.

Is it reasonable to expect that something like hell must exist somewhere?

I don't think so. There is a lot of life on this planet and so far we are pretty sure that we've figured out the life cycle of a lot of them. None of the species we've investigated so far end up living beyond death that we can see, including humans.

So it's possible we're missing something, but I'm going with the scientific consensus on the matter. "Probably not true". and as such "Not reasonable", unless you're asking in a metaphorical/religious/whatever kind of way. In that case, sure.

 

[El_Machinae]

What about Hell? What about this invisible death after death? Is Hell real? Does it exist in some invisible reality which we can only experience after we experience our first death? Is it reasonable to expect that something like hell must exist somewhere?

I can think of no good reason to expect that it exists. Throughout history, various cultures have had some variant of the idea and these cultures included both philosophers and mystics so ... maybe ... they knew something. Probably not. And, I don't know why they might have had access to information that we don't have access to

 

[Borachio]

After thousands of years of civilization we still have 0 evidence that such a thing exist. It's got to be wishful thinking.

Fearful thinking, surely? Seriously.

I mean, I'm fairly broad-minded and all, but even I don't really fancy being tortured for all eternity. Flaming hell!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't understand how anyone would be able to believe in Hell and at the same time believe the entity that created it is in any way Good.

 

[Borachio]

"As you sow, so shall you reap"?

Or is it just a case of tough love?



Let's ask an expert.

Now, has anyone actually been there? Yes, yes, I know, Dante claimed to have been there, but wasn't he writing fiction?

William Blake also claimed to have been there. But I think he's actually describing some kind of factory. Hang on... no... it was a factory, I'm sure.

 

[Oruc]

I don't understand how anyone would be able to believe in Hell and at the same time believe the entity that created it is in any way Good.

That would depend how you imagine 'good'

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you have a way to imagine good that would fit? I can't think of any.

 

[Tigranes]

I don't understand how anyone would be able to believe in Hell and at the same time believe the entity that created it is in any way Good.

Let's try to understand together, shall we? I mean we are both 21 century middle aged men with comparable education, living the same golden billionaires life, observing the same world around us, riding in the same car of the same train, essentially. There must be something one of us is missing if we come to such a different conclusion about something as fundamental as the destination and purpose of our journey.

Is it possible to create a law without consequences of that law? Is it possible to be Good and force others to be good? Is it possible to reject Good and be good?

God is a Spirit. Spirit of Love, Truth, Holiness. If you are spirit of Lucifer and you see God for what He is and reject Him, reject Love, reject Truth, reject Holiness -- you cast yourself to the Hell you have just created yourself. You just created a life for yourself with no love, truth and holiness -- thats what hell is. Hell is the place with no God, when you reject heaven you place yourself in the hell, when you turn of light you end up in darkness. Hell was created by the Satan for the Satan, not for the people.

Now, fortunately, you are not a spirit of Lucifer. You are the immortal spirit of Ziggy living in the mortal body of Ziggy. You live in this material world which started only 13.6 billions years ago (yes, I read OP of your thread). This world has laws, material laws. It may had none, it maybe just chaos upon the chaos, but no -- cause and effect sits in the very fabric of this 13.6 billion year old thing we call world. Even Chaos is described by some differential equations.

So me and you come to this world, you say this is the only big picture we got, I say there HAS to be fundamentally another reality which would make this big picture complete. How can it be that in this picture even chaos has laws, and yet there are no moral laws of any kind.

If we go with what YOU see -- we do live in hell on earth. Don't you get it by now? You can start WW2, play with millions of born people and billions of unborn, and if you fail -- you show world your middle finger and die and tell your true love to do the same. Or you can try your best and be objectively good -- only to be punished by inevitable death. See, your very own personal death is a very, very serious problem in any personal atheistic philosophy you may come up with. Death rewards bad and punishes good, to the point that nothing really matters. And when you try to reconcile this fundamental absurdity with the clever laws this world is operation with -- doesn't it tell your reason -- let's look at the other side of the picture, to find out about the Author and the meaning of all this?

Clearly your null hypothesis is failing you, otherwise you wouldn't even bother to care about alternative hypothesis. Even the most arrogant atheist cannot claim that things make sense in this world.

 

[Borachio]

^ Doesn't answer the question. 0/10.


You see, the essential conundrum the convinced theist has to answer is the Problem of Suffering.

Put concisely, this is: how does a benevolent omnipotent God allow suffering in the world? Or, indeed, anywhere.

I've yet to see anyone answer this convincingly. (Which isn't to suggest it can't be answered, of course.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

edit deleted big post in favour of: What Mr. B. said.

Not an answer to my question.

edit 2: Oh well, a little encore. Things make a lot of sense in this world.

 

[Tigranes]

Always the condescending attitude.

***

And at the end, how much wiser am I about people who believe hell was created by something which supposedly is any good? Can you explain this with a simple clear brief post? Not one where you can hide behind a wall of obfuscating text? You know who also use this technique of talking a whole lot without saying anything? Politicians.

What attitude? I went above and beyond placing me and you in the same car of the same train without really knowing you. Should I place you in the train's conductor's sit so that you feel we are fair and square?

Look, the amount of senseless ridicule and outright unmoderated blasphemy I end up reading here does not even come close with your little experience of being challenged on your own home turf. Every time you read word "God" in CFC OT replace it with "Ziggy's Father" as a little exercise of empathy in practice, to get a little perspective about my feelings. And yet, I keep my cool and ask you to return the favor. So try to exchange ideas, not emotions.

As for simple clear brief post -- I did that, and even made it look bold for easy reference. My post had as many words as yours, more or less. Talking about attitude and comparing me to politicians in the same post does not make you look any wiser, that's for sure.

So here: God did not create Hell, Satan did. Rejecting God places you in the place with no God, which is hell. Simple?

P.S. Please don't delete the entire post. You spend 15 minutes writing it, I spend 15 minutes analyzing and replying to it. And now I have to go to square one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What attitude? I went above and beyond placing me and you in the same car of the same train without really knowing you. Should I place you in the train's conductor's sit so that you feel we are fair and square?

Sure you did. Except I am missing something, my null hypothesis is clearly failing me, my very own personal death is a very, very serious problem in any personal atheistic philosophy I may come up with. You start with: "Let's try to understand together, shall we?" and then go on telling me. Which very much reads as if you're addressing a slow wit: lets see if we can solve this puzzle together little Timmy.

Or else explain to me what understanding you gained from your post.

No dear Tigranes. You are clearly arguing from a point of view of someone who has a better understanding than those silly little atheists.

Look, the amount of senseless ridicule and outright unmoderated blasphemy I end up reading here does not even come close with your little experience of being challenged on your own home turf.

I agree. My ridicule is witty and to the point. Thanks for noticing

Every time you read word "God" in CFC OT replace it with "Ziggy's Father" for a little empathy in practice. And yet, I keep my cool. So try to exchange ideas, not emotions.

Try arguing with me as if we're on equal footing. I give the same amount of respect I receive. In your case, I feel very little coming my way.

As for simple clear brief post -- I did that, and even made it look bold for easy reference. My post had as many words as yours, more or less. Talking about attitude and comparing me to politicians in the same post does not make you look any wiser, that's for sure.

Great. At least I'm staying true to myself

So here: God did not create Hell, Satan did. Rejecting God places you in the place with no God, which is hell. Simple?

Yeah.

Although now I have many questions:
Why does God allow Hell to exist? Does it think it's a just punishment?

Why would Satan create a nasty place which punishes those who don't love God? If Satan created Hell it must be awesome. It would reward those who don't love God right?

 

[Tigranes]

^ Doesn't answer the question. 0/10.


You see, the essential conundrum the convinced theist has to answer is the Problem of Suffering.

Put concisely, this is: how does a benevolent omnipotent God allow suffering in the world? Or, indeed, anywhere.

I've yet to see anyone answer this convincingly. (Which isn't to suggest it can't be answered, of course.)

If it does not answer, why it does not answer? 0/10 is not a counter-argument. It is zero arguments against 10.

How does God allow suffering? He does not. He suffers Himself. Cross. The essence of Christianity is Cross. The only truth that makes this world any different than hell is that any innocent suffering places you as a cell in the Body of the Holy God. People are finite, their sufferings are finite, God is infinite, His suffering is infinite. Every time finite innocent man is being murdered God is being murdered infinitely times more.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

[Borachio]

Your reasoning, although somehow familiar, is very strange.

If God doesn't create a suffering world, who does? (I'll guess the answer is Man*, right?)

But if God allows suffering, albeit Man-created, when she could eliminate it, as surely she could if she chose, being omnipotent, how can she still be described as benevolent?

*Or is it Satan, eh? In which case, who created Satan, and why does God permit Satan-created suffering? Or maybe, God isn't really benevolent? Or is she not really omnipotent?

'Tis a conundrum, I assure you.

Cue some hand-waving about free will, now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Another question I came up with.

You must be pretty sure of yourself to state all what you're stating. How did you get this certainty that what you're saying is right? Have you considered you may be wrong and you'd be telling people all kinds of falsehoods with the best of intentions? Would: "I don't know what I'm talking about either, it's just my take on it, seeing how many different ones there are even from my fellow theists, chances are I'm probably wrong on many accounts", be more honest?

Remember the paving of the road to hell.