Should you be afraid of Hell?

[Borachio]

Hating Nazis, I must say there's much aesthetics in them: the looks, the ideology, the resulting picture of the world under their rule. That's why the media about them is popular, not the morality and history of the period, those are utterly boring.

You sure it's not just a matter of being "edgy" for the sake of it? Or the "sexiness" of transgressing what the mainstream thinks?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

There're nice thoughts on the beauty of war and killing nicely given in Full Metal Jacket. Just recalling...

Being edgy and challenging stereotypes is a lot of fun of its own, yes.

Still. Evil, cruel, devilish, harmful things, death, destruction, rape, mutilation, wiping out, all these might be very beautiful and entertaining, much more than the opposite.

Why there's so much blood in videogames and Hollywood movies? Why most of the greatest stories of the world have blood in them?

A picture of brutal men in steel killing each other on a battlefield is much more beautiful than a picture of a baby. I'd risk to say that a picture of dark brutal men on horses killing babies with hoofs unmercifully is more beautiful than a picture of a chubby pinkish woman on white sheets giving birth to a healthy baby.

That is a dilemma. Evil things are aesthetically superior. Or supposedly evil things. Which one is evil, the baby or the battlefield, is debatable and relative. But that is out of this message.

The problem here is that by seeing and acknowledging the beauty of evil or sin you risk public censure. Most people would deny admitting something positive about the most rebuked things, even in their private thought process. Why? Because they are intimately afraid of society to punish or alienate them.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Maybe it is all scaremongering to have you refrain from things like homosexuality, irreligiousness and scepticism for no good reason.

I don't think those things top the list. Killing, stealing, cheating, and lying definitely top those at least.

 

[Borachio]

Still. Evil, cruel, devilish, harmful things, death, destruction, rape, mutilation, wiping out, all these might be very beautiful and entertaining, much more than the opposite.

Link to video.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

There are better forms of art, surely.

Spoiler :

And in the modern age we also have this:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

I am starting to like this

 

[Borachio]

It gets more complicated:


Link to video.

 

[Tahuti]

That is a dilemma. Evil things are aesthetically superior.

That is no surprise. What is named 'Evil' in Abrahamic faiths is in fact a creative force that arguably came before 'Good'. If one creator deity exists, he is 'Evil' for setting things in motion and creating meaning. There is simply no meaning without suffering and 'Evil' can help us deliver that suffering we need for our lives to give meaning.

Suffering is to be overcome, though first, there must be suffering that we can overcome in the first place. A life without suffering is like a video game that only has an epilogue which is empty. Which would be a very terrible video game at that.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That is no surprise. What is named 'Evil' in Abrahamic faiths is in fact a creative force that arguably came before 'Good'. If one creator deity exists, he is 'Evil' for setting things in motion and creating meaning. There is simply no meaning without suffering and 'Evil' can help us deliver that suffering we need for our lives to give meaning.

Suffering is to be overcome, though first, there must be suffering that we can overcome in the first place. A life without suffering is like a video game that only has an epilogue which is empty. Which would be a very terrible video game at that.

The problem God has is that she is infinite, unlimited, full of bliss, pure existence but kind of like a honey which cant taste itself. Thats why the infinite creation of infinite forms comes into existence to taste and enjoy.
But how do you create if all there is is unlimited? Therefore God first turn herself into her opposite the Matter and thus apparent limitation and evil which is still secretly connected with the Source comes into existence. Hell, limitation and suffering is temporary phenomena never the whole of reality but always part of it which serves only limited purpose although from Earth perspective can be viewed as "eternal".

 

[Tahuti]

The problem God has is that she is infinite, unlimited, full of bliss, pure existence but kind of like a honey which cant taste itself. Thats why the infinite creation of infinite forms comes into existence to taste and enjoy.
But how do you create if all there is is unlimited? Therefore God first turn herself into her opposite the Matter and thus apparent limitation and evil which is still secretly connected with the Source comes into existence. Hell, limitation and suffering is temporary phenomena never the whole of reality but always part of it which serves only limited purpose although from Earth perspective can be viewed as "eternal".

I think we must reverse the conception of enlightenment and view Nirvana as a beginning rather than the end. We all start in Nirvana, from which life emerges, lest we'd be eternally bored if we weren't to escape from it. There is very good reasons why certain enlightened ones in Buddhism voluntarily elected to return to THIS world according to Buddhist mythology. In the absence of suffering, the enlightened soul undergoes suffering voluntarily to escape boredom. Rather as something that should not exist, suffering is to be viewed as a challenge that makes life interesting.

 

[Borachio]

That, I think, is easy to say from the comfort of one's armchair.

I've just been having a conversation this evening with someone about learning things from adversity. I'm really not sure that there aren't occasions when people just suffer; and don't, and can't, learn anything from it.

 

[Tigranes]

If I kill kittens cruely, will I go to hell? No? Oh, well, then I can fulfill the evil sadist in me and still be innocent!

A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thoughts about Hell saved more depressed people from suicide than all the prevention hotlines combined. It is sad how people use Problem of Evil to remove God from the picture. Which simply makes things even more depressing, for now we still have evil without even a hope of justice somewhere.

Wait, what? How come Hell prevents suicide? "Oh, this is a crappy place, but where I'm headed, mud lakes and demons galore!"

Well, let's make sure to use proper metrics. One is 'saved' from suicide if they lose the desire to die and want to be alive (for good reasons). To be 'saved' from suicide due to a dread of Hell, without then an improvement towards wanting to be alive isn't really much of a success!

 

[Tigranes]

Well, true, but many people have a moment of despair, and if they can only survive it without doing something stupid (because of fear of Hell) -- a week after they can bounce back and come back to their senses.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You'd think he'd jump off because he knows there's Hell awaiting for him.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Those hypothetical kittens are not mine.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Double post.

 

[thecrazyscot]

That is no surprise. What is named 'Evil' in Abrahamic faiths is in fact a creative force that arguably came before 'Good'. If one creator deity exists, he is 'Evil' for setting things in motion and creating meaning. There is simply no meaning without suffering and 'Evil' can help us deliver that suffering we need for our lives to give meaning.

Suffering is to be overcome, though first, there must be suffering that we can overcome in the first place. A life without suffering is like a video game that only has an epilogue which is empty. Which would be a very terrible video game at that.

What? No. In all the Abrahamic faiths, "good" came before "evil". Evil was the violation of an already established norm.

Yeah. OK.

That doesn't really make any sense to me, though. Does it to you?

Why does it "work"? How does my guiltlessness (if I had it) affect the transaction I outlined above with my brother, and his murderous ways, in any respect?

In other words: why does the fact of Jesus' innocence make his execution work on the cosmic redemptive stage?

Is this like the scenario where humanity could have utopia provided it was willing to sacrifice one small innocent child to agonizing torment forever (or something)?

I forget where I heard about this. And I wonder why philosophers think it significant.

Also, this.

To be clear, I don't pretend to have a perfect understanding of how it "works" as at the end of the day it requires a leap of faith, and I won't pretend otherwise.

My best explanation, though, is as follows:

God is judge, and so as judge, He (and only He) determines the just punishment for sin. God is eternal, outside of time, and perfect, so the only being that even could "pay" for all sins for eternity is Him. God, as judge, volunteered Himself to make the payment for sin. As judge, He (and only He) had the right or even the ability to do so.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Also, I don't think it's accurate that Christ is suffering for eternity. At the moment on the cross all of humanity's sins were imputed to Him, and He died - the just punishment for sin. However, at the Resurrection, He exited Hell and rose from the dead, overcoming death.

If He were still in Hell suffering for our sins, that would mean that our sins were too much for even God to bear, and we'd all be screwed.

The reason that it could only work with Christ's guiltlessness is that our unrighteousness is being covered by Christ's righteousness in the eyes of God. The only way that we can stand in the presence of God is if we are perfectly righteous. If Christ were not perfectly righteous (or guiltless), then we still would not be able to stand in the presence of God as his substitutionary righteousness would still be inadequate.

Does it make sense to me?

To me, yes. Christianity as a whole provides the best explanation in my eyes regarding the nature of man and the nature of morality. Also, the God of the Bible also is the most personal and loving deity that I'm aware of. Given all that, yes, this makes sense to me. Again, it requires a leap of faith, I don't deny that, but it fits with the understanding I have of God and the world in a way that nothing else I've ever seen fits.

Also, thank you for reminding me I need to read more Ursula K. LeGuin, I've been meaning to for years

 

[Borachio]

God is judge, and so as judge, He (and only He) determines the just punishment for sin. God is eternal, outside of time, and perfect, so the only being that even could "pay" for all sins for eternity is Him. God, as judge, volunteered Himself to make the payment for sin. As judge, He (and only He) had the right or even the ability to do so.

Try as I might, I can't make head nor tail of this. I understand the individual words but they don't add up to anything that I can grasp intellectually.

Nor do I know of any reason for this doctrine.

Also, I don't think it's accurate that Christ is suffering for eternity. At the moment on the cross all of humanity's sins were imputed to Him, and He died - the just punishment for sin. However, at the Resurrection, He exited Hell and rose from the dead, overcoming death.

Well, sure. That's the biblical narrative, alright.

If He were still in Hell suffering for our sins, that would mean that our sins were too much for even God to bear, and we'd all be screwed.

Again, it's not at all evident to me why this should be so. It's not evident that it isn't so, either, btw. Who knows really? Certainly I don't.

The reason that it could only work with Christ's guiltlessness is that our unrighteousness is being covered by Christ's righteousness in the eyes of God.

This makes no sense to me. In the sense of: I see no reason why it should be so.

The only way that we can stand in the presence of God is if we are perfectly righteous.

Strangely enough, this does make some sense!

If Christ were not perfectly righteous (or guiltless), then we still would not be able to stand in the presence of God as his substitutionary righteousness would still be inadequate.

Oof! Really? Could be. Could be not. Dunno.

Does it make sense to me?

To me, yes.

Well, fine. But I must say your way of thinking about things must be remarkably different from mine.

Christianity as a whole provides the best explanation in my eyes regarding the nature of man and the nature of morality. Also, the God of the Bible also is the most personal and loving deity that I'm aware of. Given all that, yes, this makes sense to me. Again, it requires a leap of faith, I don't deny that, but it fits with the understanding I have of God and the world in a way that nothing else I've ever seen fits.

It reminds me of nothing I've ever seen in world. Remember my murderous brother? No worldly judge would ever accept my taking his punishment on myself.

But thanks for trying to explain it anyway.