Hell: Eternal Punishment... right?

[six7s]

In the absence of any evidence to support the idea of an after-life, let alone eternal damnation, I assume that hell is simply an invention of those who, unable to earn respect, resort to bullying... the ultimate 'wait until your father gets home' threat

 

[I Ratant]

It couldn't be any worse than Darfur.
No need to die to experience that, just go there.
And die.

 

[Robin]

Many traditional Christians view Hell as an eternal punnishment for those who are wicked and fall short of Heaven. There is a view where Hell is only temporary, a punishment before eternal death. To cease to exist after punishment. Your thoughts?

Link: http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4620

My thoughts? There is no Hell of course. But the New Testament unambiguously talks of eternal punishment.

 

[Gravy]

But then again, I admit that there is quite a bit regarding Christianity I never really understood.

Such as why, if God wants people to be good, he doesn't just make them good. The answer is obvious: the Biggest Douchebag in the Universe enjoys hearing the screams of billions of people roasting in eternal torment, as well as the bacony smell wafting up to heaven.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

There is also a text (didn't get included in the New Testamen Canon, for reasons which will become clear) that says that people will be tortured in Hell, but if one person asks God to pity the damned, everyone it freed from the bonds of damnation.

Can't remeber the text I'm referring to.

The Apocalypse of Peter

My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, ... It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men...

[and God said]"... thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."

I've heard some people speak about it and apparently for awhile it was a very popular version of the apocalypse amongst early Christians yet the church declared it non-canon for reasons I'm sure people more educated in such matters could explain.

This is similiar to a belief held by the Orthodox church that one day all beings in the universe, including Satan and his fallen angels, will seek the forgiveness and love of God and he will grant it.

 

[six7s]

My thoughts? There is no Hell of course.

I'm curious... aren't you a Christian? Either way, why "of course"?

But the New Testament unambiguously talks of eternal punishment.

Don't it just?

Matthew 13:50
And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels

Mark 9:48
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire

Luke 10:15
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

Luke 16:23
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Beerina]

Many traditional Christians view Hell as an eternal punnishment for those who are wicked and fall short of Heaven. There is a view where Hell is only temporary, a punishment before eternal death. To cease to exist after punishment. Your thoughts?

Punishment serves three purposes:

1. To train the neural network of the mind not to do it again.

2. To train the neural network of other peoples' minds not to do it in the first place, or this'll happen to ya!

3. For jail, it serves also to hold the criminal away from society for a period of time since the criminal has demonstrated they cannot live civilly. People contain him, but don't kill him. For serious crimes, they do kill them.



So, given that, what's the point of this afterlife punishment?

You are resurrected, punished, then re-killed.

So, 1. training your brain not to do it again is pointless.

2. Training other people's brains is pointless since they are either going to Heaven, or are in the process of being punished themselves. There are no "undecideds" out there anymore.

3. It ain't a jail, and there's no need for the re-execution since there was no point to resurrect in the first place.


One could argue God could re-re-resurrect you at some point in the future, but that's outside The Plan As Currently Understood. And why God chooses the unpleasant method of training you when he could just wave His hand, I don't know.



So there is no point to this method of afterlife. No resurrect, punish, re-kill. If The Bible specifies this, then The Bible must either be wrong, or God is not all powerful (He's an idiot) or God is not good.

 

[Beerina]

Your thoughts?

 

[theprestige]

Your thoughts?

It's my understanding that the "mainstream" christian theology holds that humans were optimized for a loving relationship with God, and that by implication any suboptimal condition (i.e., the lack of such a relationship) would be unpleasant for the human in question. Therefore the suboptimal condition is described by longstanding convention in terms of "suffering" and "punishment". But in fact it is simply a side effect of the human's free-will choice to forgo the relationship that has been offered. And how could it really be any other way? Could God force you into a loving relationship? Of course not--if it was against your will, how could it be truly loving and respectful of your preferences? So there it is: In Christian doctrine, you can choose to be suboptimal, and yes, it sucks, and yes, after a certain point the choice is (apparently) permanent (but then, who is really knows what God has planned, in the furthest reaches of eternity, there may be hope yet even for the damned--but if so, the Christian scriptures make it clear that such plans are none of our business).

 

[six7s]

the Christian scriptures make it clear that such plans are none of our business).

Make it clear? Please, do quote chapter and verse to illustrate this notion

 

[TinfoilCat]

If the punishment is of a limited time period, and then the punishee ceases to exist, and therefore retains no memory of the punishment, or of anything for that matter, how is this a punishment?

Or is this just supposed to be the punisher getting off on His jollies?

Norm

After the punishment, these type of Christians believe that the soul/body/mind/everything of the person will be perished. They will no longer exist. The punisher will always exist, but the prisoner to punishments will perish into nothing.

In the absence of any evidence to support the idea of an after-life, let alone eternal damnation, I assume that hell is simply an invention of those who, unable to earn respect, resort to bullying... the ultimate 'wait until your father gets home' threat

The only "evidence" which I know of the afterlife is NDE. NDE's are often claimed to be explained by science, but the thing I do not get is, that in some cases humans who are born blind are able to see. Some people who claimed to have NDE were born blind, never able to see the world around them, but when they experienced this NDE, they were able to see color, things, reflections of oneself. The actual validity of NDE are questionable, but I'm not sure how science can explain how the blind are able to see.

 

[Roadtoad]

Hell is 15 minutes in Modesto, CA. That's eternal enough.

 

[theprestige]

Make it clear? Please, do quote chapter and verse to illustrate this notion

My apologies for the hyperbole: I should probably have said "make it clear that it is probably none of our business".

What I mean is, mainstream Christian theology (as I understand it) considers the scriptures (i.e., the Old and New Testaments) to be a necessary and sufficient manual for restoring humans to their optimal state. Thus, since the scriptures don't discuss what may or many not happen to the damned in the fullness of time (except to say that the suboptimal condition they have freely chosen becomes permanent), it's consistent with mainstream Christian theology to assume that the answer to that question is not necessary for restoring one's optimal state, and that preocuppation with that question is probably a distraction from the matter at hand.

By the same logic, I could say that the automotive repair manual for a 2006 Ford Mustang makes it clear that the ten-year strategic plans are none of the auto mechanic's business: His business is to repair the cars for which he has manuals; the manuals don't discuss Ford's long-term planning; therefore (assuming the manuals are suffiicent) Ford's long-term planning is none of the mechanic's business.

Put another way: if it were important for us to know this answer at this time, God would have given it to us.

Note that this is simply an internally-consistent explanation. Whether or not this explanation is consistent with reality is a separate matter altogether.

 

[fishbob]

. . . he describes how the traditional idea of hell falls apart as soon as one accepts the idea of a just god; becusde if a just god sentenced people to eternal hell just for unbelief, then that god would lose his character and become a fiend. So the tradtional hell can't exist if you believe in a just god . . .

This makes some sort of sense.
What do you think you are you doing posting in Religion and Philosophy?

 

[theprestige]

This makes some sort of sense.

I think it only makes sense if one assumes certain things about the nature of god, the nature of justice, and the nature of unbelief.

It may be internally consistent (which is definitely one sort of sense), but it's not clear to me that it accurately describes reality, nor that it accurately describes Christianity.

What assumptions dos Wicks make about the nature of god, the nature of justice, and the nature of unbelief? What assumptions does Christian dogma (mainstream or otherwise) make about the nature of god, the nature of justice, and the nature of unbelief? Are Wicks's assumptions the same as Christianity's assumptions? Are they different? How different?

 

[six7s]

The only "evidence" which I know of the afterlife is NDE. NDE's are often claimed to be explained by science,

Perhaps

However, I have a hunch that there is no evidence to suggest that the near death experience phenomenon/myth is due to anything but wishful (group) thinking and/or other, equally plausible, real-world factors

The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
near-death experiences (NDEs)

A 13-year Dutch study led by Pim van Lommel and published in Lancet found that 12 percent (or 18 percent, depending on how NDE is defined) of 344 resuscitated patients who had experienced cessation of their heart and/or breathing function reported an NDE. If the cause of the NDE were purely physiological, the researchers reasoned that all of the patients should have had one because of their similar plight. Psychological factors were ruled out by the researchers, as were the medications taken by the patients. However, the researchers believe that

neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy, with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia), and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots, or as in hyperventilation followed by Valsalva manoeuvre. Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor, and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned, as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD, psilocarpine, and mescaline. These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE...*​

The Dutch researchers seem to be assuming that no significant life-insight changes occur in people who have had induced NDE-like experiences. They cite no evidence that this is so. In any case, the proper conclusion should be that the effect of induced experiences is not identical to the effect of "natural" NDEs.

We can't assume that those who report NDEs had an NDE. Nor can we be sure that only those who report having had an NDE actually had one.

<snip/>

Source: http://skepdic.com/nde.html

 

[six7s]

My apologies for the hyperbole: <snip/>
Note that this is simply an internally-consistent explanation. Whether or not this explanation is consistent with reality is a separate matter altogether.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[TinfoilCat]

I am unsure whether NDE's are valid or false. Science partially proves the majority of NDE's false, but how is it that a man/woman (can't recall which) was born blind, but yet when he/she experienced the phenomena, he/she were able to see? Blind people can't see.

Wait.
I found a link to the blind story .
Linky: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html

IF NDE's are valid, then it proves that there is an afterlife, or that your mind/soul/spirit/whatever it is goes on living, but only if they are true.

 

[Roadtoad]

First, how do you verify that NDE's are true? You hear all kinds of testimonies that people look down and see their bodies, or see things going on around them when supposedly they couldn't possible be able do so, but the reality is that we have only managed to guess roughly one or two percent of what happens in someone's mind in those moments when they begin to die.

In listening and reading about NDEs, I'm struck by the similarities between this and the discussion regarding Facilitated Communication, where someone outside decides what has happened inside. It's almost as if someone involved in this is providing an overly simplified interpretation of something very complex. I sincerely question whether those who are providing the interpretation of this event, who are claiming that, yes, you have seen the face of "god," have any idea what they're saying.

I'm reminded of hearing of one NDE, in which the guy, under his breath, began saying, "Don't let me die. I am going to Hell." Was this recognition as his brain was fading out that he had done a lot of damage to other people over the course of his life? Did he just have a guilty conscience? If there were some way to smell the brimstone on his breath once he returned to a healthy state, perhaps that could have provided some evidence, but I don't see it. It could simply be that he was frightened of dying. (Most people with any sense are.)

 

[TinfoilCat]

First, how do you verify that NDE's are true? You hear all kinds of testimonies that people look down and see their bodies, or see things going on around them when supposedly they couldn't possible be able do so, but the reality is that we have only managed to guess roughly one or two percent of what happens in someone's mind in those moments when they begin to die.

In listening and reading about NDEs, I'm struck by the similarities between this and the discussion regarding Facilitated Communication, where someone outside decides what has happened inside. It's almost as if someone involved in this is providing an overly simplified interpretation of something very complex. I sincerely question whether those who are providing the interpretation of this event, who are claiming that, yes, you have seen the face of "god," have any idea what they're saying.

I'm reminded of hearing of one NDE, in which the guy, under his breath, began saying, "Don't let me die. I am going to Hell." Was this recognition as his brain was fading out that he had done a lot of damage to other people over the course of his life? Did he just have a guilty conscience? If there were some way to smell the brimstone on his breath once he returned to a healthy state, perhaps that could have provided some evidence, but I don't see it. It could simply be that he was frightened of dying. (Most people with any sense are.)

I agree that the validity of many of the NDE's are questionable, this STILL does not explain how a blind woman is able to see. The religious side of me want to say that this is absolute proof of the after life while the skeptical side of me says that there might be a scientific answer.