Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

[Atlas]

If the material world ultimately doesn't have any value, why do theists put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes?

I once asked a born-again buddy to explain why more Christians don't forsake all they own and follow Jesus. I wish I could remember his response. We went round and round. What I do remember was the notion that all things are from God. God gave Adam and Eve territory and they blew their claim. God gave the Jews the land of milk and honey.

The Early Jews equated personal wealth with God's blessing - if you amassed it (children, cows, land, money) you were living right with God. Likewise when He smited one with disease, crop failure, a child's death it was common to turn skyward and scream, "Why? Why? Why? What did I do to deserve this?"

Anyway, since land, kids and property meant God was blessing you and your neighbors could guage how much God smiled on you just by judging how poor you were it was more probably important enough to fight over. Plus a few possessions in the desert might mean the difference between life and death.

When Christians purchased the Jewish faith they jettisoned a few ideas but territoriality and property rights were biblically desirable ideas. (Sanctions against pork were less desirable and so were seen as only for Jews. Christians are still working out how much to hate gays.)

This all comes from a conversation 30 years ago so I don't really have much to back up any claims. I just thought it was interesting so I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Mojo]

I think you are confusing Islam and Protestantism here. See, a Muslim doesn't have to rely on the Holy Book as the only source of wisdom: there is the tradition, there are holy men. Tradition obviously tells us that Haura = Virgin Babe. Otherwise, all those suicide bombers would be wrong, wouldn't they?

Yes, fair enough. But do you have any evidence that these delusional inadequates aren't wrong?

 

[jan]

Yes, fair enough. But do you have any evidence that these delusional inadequates aren't wrong?

Why not make a bet? If those 72 whatever are really grapes, you can have my 72 grapes. If they are virgins, I get your 72 virgins too.

 

[Mojo]

And, frankly, if the only way they can get their message across is by killing innocent bystanders they are clearly inadequates;

if they think that doing this will provide them with 72 brides, they are clearly delusional;

and if they think that having 72 wives is desirable, they clearly have no experience of proper grown-up relationships.

 

[Mojo]

Why not make a bet? If those 72 whatever are really grapes, you can have my 72 grapes. If they are virgins, I get your 72 virgins too.

Actually, I don't believe they will even get a grape.

 

[Atlas]

Do Muslims ever try to figure the math involved? If good muslims get 70 brides and martyrs get 72 virgins - isn't there some sharing going on? And why would women want to stay virginal? Doesn't heaven sound a bit hellish to be owned by some mad bomber with an eternal erection ordering you about forever?

 

[Robin]

If some people are burning in hell, or do burn in hell, it's because they rejected God of their own free will.

Even with today's politically correct Hell, most Christians agree that Hell will be a really bad thing - even if there are no literal flames.

So suppose I say to someone, "do as I say or I will punch you in the nose", and they don't do as I say and I punch them in the nose.

Is it his fault that he got punched in the nose because he freely chose to not to do as I said?

 

[jjramsey]

A nontrivial number of [theists] have jumped on the "end times" bandwagon with their foolish delusion about getting "raptured" before Armageddon. It sounds to me as if they've deeply discounted the future value of the material world.

And a nontrivial number of theists think that the guys all wrapped up in the rapture stuff are heretics. Discounting the material world is simply not a core attitude among theists.

Theists do not necessarily put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes. Right now, the hot-button issues are abortion and homosexuality, which don't have much if anything to do with property. If anything, theists tend to focus on issues relating to sex rather than property.

But how can the things people do with their material organs get their "spirits" in trouble?

There are at least half a dozen answers to that question, ranging from "they don't" (which is what some Gnostics apparently thought) to denial that the spirit is a ghost trapped in a flesh machine, that the mind and body are intimately connected and that you can't affect one without the other being affected as well.

Anyway, my point was that your assertion was that you were wrong in supposing that property crimes were a focus, and that the focus, right or wrong, was really on sexual issues.

 

[clarsct]

So...what I'm getting here from the theists is that Hell really doesn't give their life any more Meaning or Purpose.


Or once again, am I in the dark?

 

[Atlas]

...So suppose I say to someone, "do as I say or I will punch you in the nose", and they don't do as I say and I punch them in the nose.

Is it his fault that he got punched in the nose because he freely chose to not to do as I said?

It's not about fault. He committed a sin that distanced himself from you by not groveling to your whim. Plus, I think this is an unwinnable dilemma. You were gonna smite him anyway, weren't you?

 

[Robin]

It's not about fault. He committed a sin that distanced himself from you by not groveling to your whim. Plus, I think this is an unwinnable dilemma. You were gonna smite him anyway, weren't you?

Not at all! I was going to give him an unspecified reward after he died.

Naturally he would have had to accept this on faith, but his decision not to believe me was just as much an act of faith because he had no way of proving I couldn't reward him after he died.

 

[Atlas]

Not at all! I was going to give him an unspecified reward after he died.

Naturally he would have had to accept this on faith, but his decision not to believe me was just as much an act of faith because he had no way of proving I couldn't reward him after he died.

It sounds like you are all good and deserving of all his love. Now I want to punch him too.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

I don't think religions have needs! They aren't people. People have needs.

What would xianity be without hell? Doesn't the concept need hell to be viable?

I do think that there needs to be a place for anguish!

That's a lovely xian sentiment.

 

[elliotfc]

Regardless whether you think the metaphysical claims of Christianity to be true or not, either ways it may be an interesting question what the psychological motivation of believers is.

I agree; I'm sensitive about it because the conclusions that are drawn regarding the psychological make-up of the "other" on this forum tend to be predictably negative and belittling and rarely neutral. After a while it reads like a mantra, a statement of belief regarding the "other" that has to be true; or, it reads like a way of self-validation. If it was sporadic I wouldn't feel that way, it's just so pervasive here.

You may argue that Christians belief christian beliefs because they are true, so the question of motivation may be ignored.

Or, more correctly (or more universally acceptable) because they think they are true. The question of motivation would then be the desire to be in line with what one thinks is true, which is a rather sensible thing to do.

Nevertheless, it seems obvious that the prospect to see his enemies burn in hell is part of Tertullian's motivation. He, at least, enjoys to imagine his proponents in hell, and freely admits it.

Tertullian was something else. Crazy times back then, lots of theologians screaming at each other. It was a very young church back then, think of an little kid in a really bad mood:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

But if meaning really is, as you claim, a personal choice, at least some have chosen to use the prospect of their enemies burning in hell as something to add meaning to their lifes.

I think that's one of the indisputable points about meaning, isn't it? Something can be meaningful to person A and not meaningful to person B. It's totally variable.

I was thinking of that, seperate from objective meaning, which may or may not exist, depending on your belief. I wasn't thinking about that kind of meaning since there isn't agreement about it's existence.

Having said that, you are correct. I have no idea on the percentage of Christians who find validation in hell...less than a third, more than 10%? I don't really know.

Is it akin to people who see a child molestor on TV and wish that the molestor gets the death penalty or a painful death in a jail? It's a passionate feeling driven by an extreme need that absolute justice be meted our severely on the transgressor. It's also sort of unchristian in my opinion. It's natural and understandable, and we've probably all had that sort of feeling at least once or twice (be it supernatural or temporal justice).

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I've often found this argument a stick in hardcore theists eyes - a moral atheist is theoretically a better person than a moral theist, because the moral theist is acting this way because they are under threat of divine punishment while the moral atheist is inherently moral (as in behaving morally without the presence of consequences).

You may or may not be correct...but, from the perspective of the hardcore theist (I may or may not be one), it is silly to argue over who is a better person. We are primarily sinners. If someone is a better person, that's nice and all, but you don't stop and pat yourself on the back for that. You strive for perfection and don't worry about who is a better person.

Actually the BEST people spend their time focusing on how good other people are. You know? I knew a guy in Ann Arbor who always had wonderful things to say about people, that was the kind of guy he was. I really don't think he contemplated about if he was better than anyone else. It was irrelevant to him. The best people are charitable towards others; they see the beauty in their fellow man. The guy I'm thinking of...I'm certain he would compliment a moral atheist and congratulate him for the litany of things that he/she deserved congratulations for.

I'm not sure what percentage of hardcore theists are motivated by hell avoidance. I'm not even sure how you define hardcore theists. For all I know, part of the definition is that they DO practive hell avoidance.

When an atheist is moral, it defies the Christian paradigm of humans being flawed.

I don't think so. If that was the case, that would mean that no good was possible before Christ entered the scene, and that's ridiculous. Or, atheists actually need Christ to do good, they just don't know it. I don't even believe what I just wrote (or maybe just sort of and I wouldn't phrase it that way...) but I'm just pointing a couple things out that could be said in opposition to your claim.

What is a hardcore theist? Is it possible for a hardcore theist to not believe in heaven or hell?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

But how can the things people do with their material organs get their "spirits" in trouble?

Because our spirit and our body are entwined, and everything we do to our body affects our spiritual makeup. Kind of like the F Scott Fitzgerald story where the guy is on a deserted island because he saw people not as they materially looked, but as they spiritually looked, and everybody of course looked ugly.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

How do we know about the concepts of heaven & hell, and the criteria for who goes where? Not through physical evidence (unless you can show us some), but through concepts written in religious texts. Believing what is written about these concepts requires faith that the texts are correct. And believing that these texts are correct requires faith in the infallibility (a god-like quality) of the chain of people who bring you these texts.

No, the texts could merely be partially correct, or, could be steps in the right direction, if you believe that theology evolves over time, like I do.

We are guided by prayer, discernment, our belief in the nature of God, a whole bunch of stuff. Our opinions about heaven/hell are not the same as the objectively true details about heaven/hell, which we do not possess.

Christians (not myself) will express more certainty about heaven/hell than I admit, so you may not be talking to me, and I'm certainly not trying to defend them.

If these concepts written fly in the face of empirical evidence and are easily explained by the desires and politics within human nature, then what can they reveal about the nature of reality? From my point of view – nothing, except what I already perceive - that we humans have a human-centric view of reality.

Yes, I believe that we humans do have a human-centric view of reality. God believed that too, which is one explanation of the Incarnation.

Your answer to my remark about faith in the bible is putting faith in man with “That's like saying that putting your faith in what is written about science in a science book is putting your faith entirely in man.” - If you are trusting what is written in the face of what can be tested true or false, then yes, it’s the same thing. This would be religion, not science.

Many beliefs that scientists have, have never been tested, nor can they be tested, so I'm not digging your absolute dichotomy.

What science really is, is a process by which we attempt to correct past ideas with more accurate explanations of reality. No one has a monopoly on the truth, there are no sacred cows. Ideas stand or fall on their own merits.
So this is why I conclude:

Believing in religious texts = Human worship
Science = An attempt to understand the true nature of God (reality)

So, who's the atheist?

Well that depends on whether or not you believe in God, right?

You may be more profound than I and I'm just missing the depth of what you're saying. If so, that's certainly my fault and not yours.

-Elliot

 

[Thomas]

Many beliefs that scientists have, have never been tested, nor can they be tested, so I'm not digging your absolute dichotomy.

You're right. We might as well believe in this:

Don't worry, we all know he got the woodpecker in the end. Dubi-dubi-dubi-dubi-DUB... MAB! MAB!

Notice the hip-hop styled arm posture by DJ Adam. I think'y him say: "Yo-Ho-Bitch, I hope ya'r top better at da nasty thing than them uncool animals!".

I think the burning bush was made of hemp. That would explain a lot. "Far out maaaaan! It talked!".

Here's Queen Jesus the Fag at the local stripclub. As illustrated; not all the troopers thought him equally hot, but there do is something about that divine nipple. Isn't there?

Someone translated the Greek word "erection" into "resurrection" - as the difference might be subtle in the spelling. And there you have it, Elliot.

 

[jan]

Do Muslims ever try to figure the math involved? If good muslims get 70 brides and martyrs get 72 virgins - isn't there some sharing going on? And why would women want to stay virginal? Doesn't heaven sound a bit hellish to be owned by some mad bomber with an eternal erection ordering you about forever?

I am not an expert in this kind of question and just mentioned it for the giggle value (and it borders on an attempt to derail the thread), but as far as I understood it, those Hūris are supposed to be completely independently created beings, not former human women. So there is no sharing needed. Also, the don't stay virginal (not together with a man with an everlasting erection), but they are supposed to become virginal again every new morning. Whatever that may mean.

I agree; I'm sensitive about it because the conclusions that are drawn regarding the psychological make-up of the "other" on this forum tend to be predictably negative and belittling and rarely neutral. After a while it reads like a mantra, a statement of belief regarding the "other" that has to be true; or, it reads like a way of self-validation. If it was sporadic I wouldn't feel that way, it's just so pervasive here.

[...]

Or, more correctly (or more universally acceptable) because they think they are true. The question of motivation would then be the desire to be in line with what one thinks is true, which is a rather sensible thing to do.

Point taken. Maybe the real reason for this thread was Interesting Ian's implicit assumption in another recent thread that you need an afterlife to have a meaningful life.

Tertullian was something else. Crazy times back then, lots of theologians screaming at each other. It was a very young church back then, think of an little kid in a really bad mood:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

But Tertullian wasn't a kid when he became a Christian. See, I don't want to hold you or any Christian responsible for some weird theologian who lived long time ago and who even might be considered as a heretic. But your excuses don't sound that convincing.

I have no idea on the percentage of Christians who find validation in hell...less than a third, more than 10%? I don't really know.

Is it akin to people who see a child molestor on TV and wish that the molestor gets the death penalty or a painful death in a jail? It's a passionate feeling driven by an extreme need that absolute justice be meted our severely on the transgressor. It's also sort of unchristian in my opinion. It's natural and understandable, and we've probably all had that sort of feeling at least once or twice (be it supernatural or temporal justice).

I don't know whether such an urge is "natural". Perhaps education and cultural environment might have a saying too?

So, maybe there is a hell, and per chance it fulfills an emotional need of many people.

Or, perhaps, there is a hell, and it fulfills an emotional need of many people per design, since God created both hell and our hearts.

Or there is no hell, but some people would want it to exist.

Nevertheless, I would prefer if there would be no hell — not because I am in terror I might end there; I am thinking more along the lines of what I would do, would I be omnipotent.

Does God need a hell? Does hell give God's life meaning and purpose?

 

[FreeChile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

Originally posted by elliotfc

I don't think that God is unatainable, for I believe in the sacramental presence of God in the Eucharist.

How does one attain God through this process?

You're free to have any opinion about my mental state, whatever makes you feel good.

My post was not about calling people names. It was about describing a contradiction. Wanting God is a neurosis. Why? Because the individual who wants God or Heaven as those concepts have been defined, wants something that does not exist. For example, look at “God is love.” How could you possibly want love without pain.

You can die thinking about how neurotic all of the people surrounding you were. And then it won't matter to you anymore. You can make much ado about nothing if you want. Thankfully, your opinion about my personal mental state is useless, besides the effect that judgment has on your own personal mental state.

It is interesting that you appeal to fear of death here in retorting to my comment. It is that fear of coming to an end that has created this notion of God and Heaven. That is the way I see it. You may not even admit this to yourself. So this fear has created God and Heaven and yet you expect God and Heaven to take away this fear. Do you see the contradiction there?

Let's just call people who think different than us neurotic. That's brilliant. That'll show 'em.

Some people find things pleasurable that other find painful.

I don’t see how this is related to the contradiction I brought up. If anything, it makes my point even stronger as things cannot even be defined on equal terms. So even what anyone says about God is questionable—and you’re telling us that communion brings us closer to God! Why not simply having bread and wine in a bar? I guess they both give you a good fix. Of course, in the bar, you usually know what you’re getting, unless you think you’re going to hell for it.

I don't define God as ultimate pleasure, and I'm surprised that is your definition of God. No wonder you don't believe in God. Because that is your working definition it's tough to see any point in what you've said.

Then please tell us how one should define Heaven and God and the reason people want both if not in terms of love and hate, pleasure and pain. Simply if there were no apparent benefit in wanting God, people wouldn’t want God.

Also, why have you interpreted my comments to mean that I do not believe in God? I have not taken a position here on that issue.