Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[Tom62]

If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more .

[i_am_i]

i_am_i,

I presented my view specifically because the charge is often leveled that Hell is incompatible with a good God's existence, and therefore, if Hell is real, God either does not exist or is not good. Now, obviously, if you don't believe in God or Hell, there is nothing to say one way or the other. But for those who think that Hell presents a logical problem for Christianity, I think the view I've put forward here demonstrates why it is not. In sum, again, the suffering in Hell is not punitive; it is consequential.

Look, call me J. It says it right there in my signature, "Call me J."

So, call me J.
 
I don't think that Hell with a capital H is a logical problem for Christianity. I think everything in the Christian...whatever it is is a logical problem for Christianity. Religion is a logical problem for any religion.

Of course your idea of logic and my idea of logic are two different things, you being educated and all, no offense intended.

And all you're demonstrating here, once again, is that you're a Christian. We get it, you're a Christian. Nothing that anyone says here is going to change that. So...now what?

[Sophus]

If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more .

Another Thomas Jefferson?

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

You didn't even answer the most important question, you know, the one about sex in heaven.    In any event, I guess I have a couple of new problems.  You make a decent case that Hell isn't necessarily literal burning with flames and all.  However, you haven't shown that it necessarily isn't.  I'm leaning towards the fire because that is what is mentioned in the Bible.    While I can see a reason to try to reconcile some of the wild claims made by the Bible with what we know about the physical world when dealing with the physical world, it seems no such reconciliation is necessary when speaking of Heaven an Hell.  After all, Hell and Heaven are places that don't have the same rules as earth. Who knows, maybe pure gold is transparent in Heaven.  Maybe the gates are literally made of pearl.  It's Heaven, anything is possible.  

God is existence.  You said so.  Hell exists.  You said so. It seems to me that Hell must contain some element of, or is sustained by, God.  But you tell me that Hell is a place where God's goodness doesn't exist.  I'm confused.  

 As Poop pointed out, and you didn't answer clearly enough for me, God sets up the rules.  You seem to be trying to characterize this whole going to Hell thing as out of God's hands by saying that it is the logical consequence of denying God.   Logical consequence?  Is this a test to see if we are paying attention?  It's not like he can't go to Hell and spruce up the place. It's not like there even has to be a Hell.  He made Hell, He chooses to make it a crappy place by denying his goodness to it.  He knows people that He created are down there.  Shame on Him.

Although I joked about it in an earlier post.  My main personal objection to this concept of Hell still remains.  My essence is what defines me.  It is literally what humblesmurph is.  Yes, humblesmurph is speaking about humblesmurph in the third person.  Yes, humblesmurph realizes the irony of this.  

Let me make it plain.  Whatever goes to Hell when I die, it isn't me.  My essence received it's properties from God.  Remove God or goodness, and you have altered my essence. Wait, did I just type that?  My essence can't be altered.  If my essence is altered even slightly, like one part of a gazillion, I cease to exist.  Whatever exists in my stead, isn't me.   This is the logical consequence of altering my essence.  When I go to Hell, humblesmurph ceases to exist and some other unfortunate entity gets to spend eternity outside of the shining light of God's goodness in humblesmurph's place.  Where did humblesmurph go?  Well, I suspect he's worm food.  What can we say about this entity that takes humblesmurph's place in Hell?  Well, we know it lacks morality.  Without morality, can we say it is human or the essence of a human?  I think not. Man was made in God's image, a man or an essence of a man with no morality is an oxymoron.  Even Hitler and Stalin had morality.  Only beasts lack morality.  So when humblesmurph dies, humblesmurph doesn't go to Hell.  Furthermore, the entity that goes in humblesmurph's place is just a beast that was created for the very purpose of going to Hell.  I'm cool with that.  Your hell just isn't scary enough.

[PoopShoot]

Your hell just isn't scary enough.

In fact, it sounds less scary than the prospect of not having any afterlife at all.  Maybe not scary, but still...

[Asmodean]

Hell, in the more or less biblical sense of the word, is a counter-intuitive, highly speculative concept that depends entirely on several factors, such as the existence of afterlife, awareness in afterlife (Possibly awareness of "former self", "souls" (A dreadful word, but you get the idea...) having feelings and emotions, "souls" actually existing, in many cases the presense of god, which is another counter-intuitive proposition when sufficient intelligence is applied and so on.

Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

[humblesmurph]

Hell, in the more or less biblical sense of the word, is a counter-intuitive, highly speculative concept that depends entirely on several factors, such as the existence of afterlife, awareness in afterlife (Possibly awareness of "former self", "souls" (A dreadful word, but you get the idea...) having feelings and emotions, "souls" actually existing, in many cases the presense of god, which is another counter-intuitive proposition when sufficient intelligence is applied and so on.

Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

I'm of the same mind as you.  However, Jac isn't presenting a proof of Hell here.  He is making the argument that Hell isn't inconsistent with a Good God.  It's all just mythology.  The Bible is a story.  We are simply arguing about whether this story makes any sense.  I've had similar conversations about the Matrix and Shawshank Redemption.

[Jac3510]

Sophus.

You disagreed with both premises of my argument:

1. If morality is objective, God exists
2. Morality is objective
3. Therefore, God exists.

With regard to the first, I've already given a brief explanation here as well as a detailed explanation in the thread on Pascal's Wager. If morality is evolved, it is still completely subjective, because whatever value system it is based upon is still absolutely personal. It wouldn't matter if everyone agreed on it or not, the value system would still necessarily be personal. To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy.

With respect to the second, if you think God roasting people in Hell forever is actually wrong, then you believe in objective morality. The question is whether or not you are willing to accept the necessary consequences of that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is answered by the fact that evil is by its nature torturous.

I've never tortured anyone.

I said evil is torturous. Not you. You are neither good nor evil, but a mixture of both. Come the resurrection, you will either be completely good or completely evil.

But, to challenge your point, if you've ever caused anyone severe pain--including emotional--you've tortured them, even if unintentionally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry but it all reads like a bunch of theologist BS to me.  A LOT of words to say little of nothing that has not been PREACHED from nearly every pulpit in the Christian world, and it's all wrong.

Your entire world view is rightfully yours, but wrongfully viewed.  You are making assumptions for which there is NO evidences at all, NONE.  Your only evidence is found in the bible or from writers who have studied the bible, or from philosophers who have "thought" about hell using the bible.  So by your definition, hell is a consequence of the rejection of god, not from the consequence of sin.  Wow, so a man who has "found" Jesus, been saved, and yet has done horrible things in his life is destined for heaven'; yet a man like myself who has done many good things because I like the way they make me feel, have helped many, many young people get an education, given of my time, talents, and money to charities, and lived a pretty darn boring and normal life, I AM destined for hell because I do not believe in god.  I know you have an answer to this, but is it going to be based on evidences or your view?

Nah, it all smells to "high Heaven" pun intended.

As HS notes, I'm simply discussing the consistency of Hell. Atheists very often make the claim that Hell isn't consistent with a good God. To go back now and say, "Well you aren't giving evidence that Hell is real" is to move the goalposts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If what is written in the Bible is no longer correct according to modern theologists and Christian philosophers, then why don't they rewrite the Bible and bring out a version that is correct?  As it is right now, we've got a major conflict between the actual texts in the Bible and their actual "meaning". So it is high time to bring out a corrected and updated version of the Bible, to make it more coherent and valid. BTW I'm sure that all Christians would love to have a new edition of the Bible, that no longer contains stuff which are invalid or irrelevant according to modern theology and Christian philosophy. It would give them practically nothing to believe in any more :verysad:

Haha, my apologies. No, there is no sex in heaven. Perhaps we can take this as the great proof that Heaven isn't really all good?

As for your objections:

1. There are enough descriptions of heaven and hell in the Bible that we are more than justified in taking the language to be figurative. The mistake most people make when they take language as figurative is that they therefore assume that the thing itself isn't somehow real, but figurative language is used to illustrate a specific, real idea. So what does being thrown into a lake of fire imply? Unimaginable anguish. That's the concept. What does Jesus describing Hell as a dumb imply? That it's inhabitants are corrupt and worthless. Please understand that I am a literalist in my approach to the biblical text. I am not, however, a crass literalist. When Jesus said "I am the door," He wasn't implying that He had hinges on His body somewhere.

2. You raise an important point about existence and its relationship to goodness. I've been--or have tried to be--as simple as possible and not introduce distinctions until necessary, and here, one has become necessary. There are two kins of perfections: transferable and non-transferable. Knowledge, for instance, is a transferable perfection of God's. As God has knowledge, there is a sense in which we similarly have knowledge. Some perfections however cannot logically be transferred. Self-existence in one such perfection. There is no sense in which we are necessary, self-existent beings.

Now, in God, because He is simple, all perfections exist without distinction. His goodness is His existence is His love is His knowledge, etc. In us, however, our perfections exist in a diverse manner. Our goodness is not our existence is not our love is not our knowledge, etc. Yet all of these are derived (necessarily by analogy) from God.

With this in mind, we can answer your question directly. Beings in Hell still receive their existence from God. This is morally necessary on His part, for to withdraw existence would be annihilation, which would be immoral, which God is not capable of. All other perfections, though, become non-transferable. In this life, knowledge can be transferred. In the next, the unbeliever has asked God effectively to leave them alone, a request which God fundamentally honors. There is, then, no knowledge, even analogically, in this being, or any of the other perfections. In short, those in Hell are existing essence with absolutely no perfections (which will provide the basis of my answer to your last objection). As essences, they have all the capacity they ever did to receive such perfections, but those capacities will ever be void, and the resulting lack is defined as pure evil, and it is that lack that will torture those pure souls forever.

3. Concerning God's choice in creating Hell, again, Hell is a byproduct of creating moral beings. The creation of a moral being necessitates the creation of Hell, just as the creation of a coin by definition creates two sides. You can't have good without evil, because to have good requires us to define what it would mean to not have good. We call that state evil, and we call the experience of pure evil Hell. God's only option, then, in avoiding the creation of Hell would have been to not create any moral beings at all.

4. Would you rephrase your main personal objection? Why is it that you think that your essence in Hell would be different from your essence on earth? Why is it that the "you" in Hell would be a different person from the "you" that now exists? I don't follow your reasoning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your hell just isn't scary enough.

In fact, it sounds less scary than the prospect of not having any afterlife at all.  Maybe not scary, but still...

Certainly it does. Again, annihilation would be, in my view, fundamentally immoral. God wouldn't do that to anyone. Now, the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind. An eternity of rage and terror by itself makes me shudder, not to mention the rest of it. But, no . . . non-existence isn't a moral option.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's prove there IS a hell before we try applying logic to its proposed properties and workings, eh..?

No, let's talk about the repeated objection that Hell is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that God is good. If we prove a moral God exists, then we go on from there to prove that Hell exists. That, however, is a different debate entirely. To insist on it at this juncture is, as I have already pointed out, to move the goalposts.

[Dretlin]

The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

[Jac3510]

The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

See my response to HS and and Thump on the matter. I am not asserting the Bible is incorrect on the nature of Hell as Tom implied. Just the opposite. Now,as I've stated my case twice on the matter, if you want to comment on the substance of the argument I've already made, feel free to do so.

[Dretlin]

The Bible is correct.

Prove it.

See my response to HS and and Thump on the matter. I am not asserting the Bible is incorrect on the nature of Hell as Tom implied. Just the opposite. Now,as I've stated my case twice on the matter, if you want to comment on the substance of the argument I've already made, feel free to do so.

Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

[Jac3510]

Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

Again, see my response to both Thump and HS on the matter. I'll help you out. They can be found here and here respectively. If you would like to discuss my position on this issue, then start with what I have already said.

[Dretlin]

Unless you have proof that it is correct their is no reason why anyone should believe you, if you are applying it to the natural world in any way.

Again, see my response to both Thump and HS on the matter. I'll help you out. They can be found here and here respectively. If you would like to discuss my position on this issue, then start with what I have already said.

When I have the time to read your generously large posts, I would like to reply.  

[PoopShoot]

Certainly it does. Again, annihilation would be, in my view, fundamentally immoral. God wouldn't do that to anyone. Now, . An eternity of rage and terror by itself makes me shudder, not to mention the rest of it. But, no . . . non-existence isn't a moral option.

Therein lies the rub.  "the existence you will be left with will be worse than anything you can imagine as it will be devoid of any possible goodness of absolutely any kind" is morally repugnant and underscores the immorality of the being creating such a reality.  This, however, isn't what you previously described.  You described a place where people who couldn't be bothered to follow the inherent inconsistency and blatant hypocrisy of Jesus' fan club would spend eternity together.  Knowing the attitudes atheists tend to have as well as the attitudes theists tend to have, accounting for the fact that many theists are good people and therefore not true believers, I would prefer to spend eternity NOT in heaven.  Seriously, if the assholes up the street, you and Eddy constitute the average being in heaven and Thump, Smurph and Tank constitute the average person in hell, hell wouldn't be so bad of a place, but heaven would be terrible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, I am not going to line-by-line the responses. As you note, the length gets out of hand and it becomes difficult to answer others who are interested in discussion.

It's cool, no sweat.  As I said, I'm with you here.

2. The assumption of a moral God is unjustified even for this thread (though you are willing to discuss the issue on the assumption of God's existence generally):

If God is not assumed to be good, then we may as well just say that God is a cosmic sadist. The problem with God and Hell is that we can't figure out how to reconcile a good God with Hell. If God isn't good, we may as well say, "Because God gets His jollies off by watching people squeal." Obviously, our problem is reconciling a good God with Hell, which is therefore the basis of the assumption.

When in thinking you reach a contradiction, you may be sure that one or more of your premises is wrong.

It isn't so much that He took your guilt (although that was the practical impact) as it was He took humanity's guilt.

This is actually germane to your argument because of your assumption of your god's goodness.  The very fact that your god practices both corporate guilt and blood expiation is indicative of, at best, a morally ambiguous character, and one who is clearly capable of great evil.  No, if he also created hell, your assumption of his goodness is fatally undermined, and that pretty much ends the discussion.

Humans have free will ....

Which verse in the Bible says this?

Immoral behavior is never from God.

Nonsense.  As I've shown you in another thread, you god has ordered genocide and corporate punishment for individual crimes.

6. What is an eternal body?

A body that never dies..... It simply takes time for the decay to set in.

Oh, I see.  It's another unevidenced structure built into your argument.  Cool.

7. God's ability to keep people from going to Hell

See my response to PS above. Hell is a byproduct of creation. Giving men the ability to do good necessarily entails giving them the ability to do evil. The ability to do evil necessarily entails the possibility of an eternity without God, and since God is fundamentally good, that necessarily means an eternity without the slightest goodness, which is what we would call Hell.

Here is another limit you have placed on the god you claim is omnipotent.