Atlas said:
I could have chosen a better word than senseless. I agree with the rest of humanity on the finality of death.
But what about the people who say that death is not final? Do they not really know what they are saying, and therefore, there assertion can be ignored? And if so, don't you have to say that humanity doesn't agree on the finality of death, just by the fact that you can state that some people are wrong regarding the question?
We can never walk this way again. If the soul exists and continues it will be as something different, inhuman. Death for a human being is a forever thing.
Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. Or they should. Some don't (the pick and choose thing). It's in all of the earliest creeds. Christians believe that we were created to *be* human.
This might be the time to state something about heaven (I know this thread is about hell). I think that heaven is not a place, but a relationship. Adam & Eve (I'm forgetting the fact that I don't agree in the literal delivery of Genesis) were in heaven. The resurrected Jesus is the form of what I think we'll end up as. We certainly aren't going to end up like angels. Angels are an entirely different species, we are not on their level. And if we were created to be immaterial, why the hell were we given human bodies? And if God means to scrap the whole idea of humanity in the end (all souls being disembodied in heaven) why the hell did he become a human being?
Anyhow, for what I insist are good Christian theological reasons, I disagree that death *for a human being* is a forever thing. I was created to be a human being, and I believe that I'll be one again, that God will rectify the human condition. If I wasn't created to be a human being I would not be a human being. It's pretty elementary to me. And again, the earliest creeds preach the resurrection of the body.
It is the eternal nature of death that suggests the eternal nature of the departed soul.
That's a possibility. But some cultures didn't draw that conclusion, and certainly you don't. I think death suggests death, and that's about it. For death to suggest life you have to have something other than death enter the equation. Right?
Along with death is the ugly corruption of the flesh. The corpse is foul and worm food. The underworld is dark and destroying. Visions of a rotting corpse, rotting flesh, offend us and we know it is our fate.
Yes, but then why do people make zombie movies, and why I can't I get enough of them?
Outside of zombie movies I never think about visions of rotting corpses. Plus, believers and skeptics can be equally adept and nonchalant about doing autopsies or embalmings.
We yearn for an alternative and seek some brighter future. Maybe if we grovel to the God of death and destruction he will not eat us.
Well sheesh, if I had that attitude...
If God really was the God of death and destruction, would there be a brighter future?
For people who lived in dark ages and saw plagues destroy loved ones and had no way to think about themselves except as pawns of the gods, horror was close and all too real. Hell was a natural thing to believe of God. He was harsh and mean and demanded worship, adoration, and fealty. Unscrupulous men saw profit in the wielding of ideas of hell against the masses.
You'll admit that the depictions of Hell did not originate in the Dark Ages.
Interesting that you mention it, anyhow. I never get people telling me about the horrors of hell. In the past few years, the people who insist on them are the skeptics on this board. Meaning they conjure them up, even though they don't believe in them. Talk about unscrupulous...
And since we're past the dark ages, what's the problem exactly? Isn't it good if Christians like me not talk about hell in such ways, and water it down or something? And those who do invoke the horror hell, haven't they been effectively marginalized? I guess that's disputable. Yet you do bring up the....DAH DAH...
The scientific age (boldface mine) has found more terrestrial answers to problems inflicted on us from the gods and demons. It has brought a light into the world. God has changed in my lifetime from a wrathful being to one of love. I was raised Catholic like you.
Yes, of course it has found more answers. It is a vicious cycle, and this isn't my line. They say that for every answer science provides, it raises more questions. Which lead to more answers. It's insane. It's madness. Of course you have found more answers. You're always making the questions!
I'm being a bit silly. But not totally. Some of the questions/answers are banal. Yes, banal I says, and I means it. I don't care about a better GameCube or fancy shmancy TV.
More importantly, it hasn't banished *any* of the fundamental concerns of humanity. Yes, science has cured many diseases. And we expect science to cure every disease. No contentment there. How about suffering? Do humans suffer less, today, than in the Dark Ages? Sure. And we probably bitch and moan about, and are more fearful about, suffering today than then. Are people happier? Ask your shrink for the answer.
Science will never cure the human condition, short of nuclear or viral or weather-related annihalation. It's an admirable goal, but all the answers just lead to more questions. No end in sight. Unless that's the point. Never-ending question and answer.
It's fine for what it is. I'll reap the benefits of science without worshipping it or making it the most important thing in my life. It ain't gonna deliver me from death, that's for sure.
Hell resonates only because humans have a knowledge and fear of their own death.
So, people who find resonance in hell must be afraid of their own death? What if a person claims to find resonance in hell, and also claims to not be afraid of their own death? Are they mistaken? And if so, how can that be determined short of empathic supernatural powers?
To make that statement suggests you need to believe that people who have certain beliefs have to be motivated in a certain way. The only way you can have such a belief with any knowledge is if a)when you were a believer, you know that you were motivated by fear or b)an ex-believer admits a similar scenario or c)a believer admits to be motivated by fear. But why should those three scenarios be deterministic for how all believers would be motivated. Now there's a question I'd like to see science answer.
Priests and other religious exacerbate the problem for business reasons.
Bwah! And skeptics. Skeptics make money give speeches and write books about how the religious exacerbate the problem. It's a conspiracy!
One God is as good as the next but if you can control people's vision of hell - you own them. They'll pray to whichever God you tell them if they can escape the hell that scares them the most and is promised them if they fail to follow orders.
Sheesh, that's pretty harsh.
Let's say you're right. So what?
Just as I told Iacchus, a loving God, if He exists, would reward those whom he chose to reward and leave the rest dead.
Yeah, but you're not the expert on what a loving God would have to be, so that doesn't mean much. It only means something if God exists. If God exists, and he's not the loving God that you would define, that would be the hypothetical I'd like to hear you comment on. The other hypothetical is impotent, since you have no control on what a loving God would or wouldn't do.
You're not a theologian, nor do you claim to be one on television. That's why I'm being dismissive about your definition of a loving God. You're defining a God that you don't believe exists.
There is an economy to the vastness of creation. A beauty. For a loving God to make an eternal Hell for cruel and eternal terror and punishment would be senseless. For a priest to tell you about Hell is good business.
No, anything that God would do would make sense.
The good thing here is that you recognize how bad hell would be, so I'm not that worried about you.
The business stuff doesn't mean much because I can't remember the last time a priest told me about hell and nobody on this forum spends more time listening to priests talk than me.
This ignores one point I'd like you to address. Would a human being have the right to make the choice to reject God? And if so, shouldn't that choice be respected? And if it's a bad choice, shouldn't discomfort arise from it?
And if you are to say "but who would choose hell if it's so bad", I'd ask you to address the other point I asked earlier. What would you make of a God who would have hell exist? Would you reject that God? If the answer is yes, than the answer would be you. You would choose hell. And failing to choose means you would be too proud to choose, or above the choice. Which is itself a choice.
The more people insist about the nature of a loving God, but more they insist that God must be as they want God to me, the more hell makes sense. I'm not saying you're going to hell, because over the months I've determined that you are a fair-minded and sensible person. But any opinion (a loving God MUST be this way) can be held for eternity.
I guess that's what I'd like Atlas. Could you address those two questions?
1)If God existed, and if Hell existed, would you have a problem with that?
2)If you had a problem with that, would you prefer Hell (as bad as it may be) to a reconciliation with a God who you have a serious problem with?
Personally, I don't find the existence of Hell as problematic as you. I see it as an existence of Free Will. The fact that it is painful (you are free to use additional adjectives as you'd like) follows the reality that the rejection of God is a bad choice. Why shouldn't a bad choice lead to bad consequences? It all just makes sense to me, and if it doesn't make sense to you at the moment, I think God understands that and it won't be held against you (unless you want it to be held against you).
ETA: To clarify, the eternal soul traps us by our fear of eternal hell. If hell merely burns up the soul it is not horrible enough for the business of religion to use to control and extract our money and lives. [/B]
Heck, we all have to make a living. I could question the motivation of anyone who got paid, I guess.
-Elliot
-- and suggest that we are all creatures of our own invention. Do you know of any two people who think and act alike? I don't. So in that sense heaven and hell must be as varied as the number of people on this planet. Which isn't to say we all don't derive our perception from the same thing. There's only one sun in the sky isn't there?