Why Jac has no (logical) problem with Hell

[humblesmurph]

Actually I've just been examining it from a sociological standpoint.  I'm not very good at sociology so your input has been appreciated.  I have looked at morality from a biological standpoint for a very long time.

like which moral behaviors are demonstrably better for survival of a species?

It's a hair more complicated than that, but in a nutshell, yes.

Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

[PoopShoot]

Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

It's based on what I know about biology, evolution and such.

[humblesmurph]

Any recommended reading?  Or is it all big brained sciency type stuff?

It's based on what I know about biology, evolution and such.

Do you write?  Seems like an interesting topic for a book. All the stuff I see on the subject of biological morality seems quite philosophical.  Maybe your book could be less mental masturbation and more empirical evidence based.

[PoopShoot]

Interesting.  I might drum up an essay on the subject some time.

[tymygy]

Jac, Your entire argument is based on the assumption that hell is without a doubt real. And in order to explain why a hell would exist you must first tell me why an all loving god would create hell for the children he loved. God sat in heaven for eternity, perfectly fine with what was going on, why would he wait an infinit amount of time to create us? And set us up to fail? Why torture his creation if there is no chance for redemption?

Tell me why the people in other countries, that have never even heard the name of jesus, die before they have to the chance to find the one "true" god?

Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO.

I know you have a son, I've read it in another topic. But let me ask you something. Would you ever, EVER make your son burn in eternal fire, with no chance of the pain ending? Why do you believe god would do that to his billions of children? Being holy means nothing, just because they didn't ask for forgivness should never be equal to an eternal punishment. If god can do so many magic tricks like ressurect dead bodies, make rain fall at 8700 inches a day (the flood) get all of the millions of species onto the arc in one day, why can't he simply say "come to heaven"?

If god existed, his design/plan would make sense. Instead, it doesn't.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

Where you at man?  I hope all is well.  I know you aren't the least bit thrown by the responses to your OP.  Please don't be dissuaded by the derail, I for one am greatly interested in your response.  I know it hasn't been that long since your last post, just giving you a stab with a stick to see if you are still involved with this particular discussion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jac, Your entire argument is based on the assumption that hell is without a doubt real. And in order to explain why a hell would exist you must first tell me why an all loving god would create hell for the children he loved. God sat in heaven for eternity, perfectly fine with what was going on, why would he wait an infinit amount of time to create us? And set us up to fail? Why torture his creation if there is no chance for redemption?

Tell me why the people in other countries, that have never even heard the name of jesus, die before they have to the chance to find the one "true" god?

Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO.

I know you have a son, I've read it in another topic. But let me ask you something. Would you ever, EVER make your son burn in eternal fire, with no chance of the pain ending? Why do you believe god would do that to his billions of children? Being holy means nothing, just because they didn't ask for forgivness should never be equal to an eternal punishment. If god can do so many magic tricks like ressurect dead bodies, make rain fall at 8700 inches a day (the flood) get all of the millions of species onto the arc in one day, why can't he simply say "come to heaven"?

If god existed, his design/plan would make sense. Instead, it doesn't.

tl/dr:  A perfect creator would have no need to punish his creations.  A perfect creator would create perfection.

[i_am_i]

My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?

[i_am_i]

I started all over with this thread and here's where I had to stop to ask you something, Jac, it's in your opening post:

My major thesis is that Hell exists as a real place of eternal torment, but that our moral confusion arises because we take that torment to be punitive when it fact it is simply consequential. In other words, we don't suffer in Hell because we are being punished for our sins (up to and including not believing in Jesus); rather,those who die without Christ will be tortured by their own natures, and this state of affairs is that which we call Hell.

Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?

[notself]

Hell is where we are tortured by our nature ---- tortured by our natures which are born in original sin which the cranky trickster god forced on everyone because two innocent children made the wrong decision after being tempted by a talking snake sent by the trickster god.  Now that its been explained, I believe.  I believe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

[PoopShoot]

Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

Fuck, that deserves a +.  Too bad I can't.

[Davin]

Actually, Hell is the 405/101 interchange at 5:30 pm.

Fuck, that deserves a +.  Too bad I can't.

I think that's equivelant to it.

[Jac3510]

Hey all - sorry for the long delay. I've had a heck of a week and am about to have another one, but I thought I should come back and respond to some of the conversation I'd left hanging. So let's see how this goes . . . so yeah, HS, I'm still around. Just crazy busy. I still need to get back to the other threads in the philosophy forum, too, but I'm pretty sure we'll all be around here for awhile . . .

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

PS, you argued that my sentence "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 both morally repugnant and different from what I argued before.

First, it is exactly what I described before. Reread my original post. I described Hell as a total lack of goodness and further pointed out that even unbelievers experience a level of goodness in this life precisely because human beings are still in the image of God, complete with the Moral Law written on our hearts. All that changes in the resurrection. All the niceness in the atheists you know--and I have agreed repeatedly that many atheists are fine, good, and nice people--will be completely gone, as that basic goodness is merely borrowed capital, so to speak.

Second, the categorical statement of its moral deficiency ignores the entire argument I put forward. Assertions arguments do not make. As I have argued, it would be immoral if it were punitive. It is not, however. It is consequential, and as such, there is no moral dilemma in suffering.

You then go on in a later post to argue that morality cannot be objective if it comes from a deity. You state, "The funny thing is that objective morality CAN'T exist from a deity. If god decides what is moral, morality isn't objective, it's subjective to him. I can and do accept objective morality and all that it entails, including circumstances."

This is wrong. God doesn't decide what is moral. Things are moral relative to God's nature.

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

Thump, your post fundamentally raised three issues

1. Limits on God

Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything that can be done. It does not, and never has, meant the ability to do that which is logically impossible. To argue this places a "limit" on God is simply ignorance of what Christianity has always taught on the matter. Arguments like "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" come across in exactly the fashion as when someone says, "If evolution is true, where are there still monkeys?" If something is logically necessary, that is true even of God. It doesn't limit Him, because something that is logically impossible is, in fact, not a thing, and is thus meaningless. All limits, by definition, are meaningful, so a meaningless limit is no limit. If Hell, then,  is a logically necessary consequence of free moral agency, then God didn't have a logical option not to create Hell if He made free moral agents (that is, us). Which raises the question of . . .

2. Human free will

You asked for a verse. To give only one, "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."(Josh. 24:15, NIV) Choice is impossible if there is no [relatively] free will.

Finally, then . . .

3. Evil acts of God

You charge God of evil on two counts, and if God is evil, then the entire argument goes out the window. First, you said if God created Hell then that would make Him evil. That, however, is the entire point of this thread, and as such, to assert Hell is evil is to simply beg the question. If you would like to consider my original argument as to why Hell is not evil, we can talk about this more. Second, then, you argued that God committed evil in killing people, to which I have already responded thoroughly. As you noted, it is in another thread, and so I insist that we keep these arguments in their proper places. In any case, for the purposes of this thread, I could simply disavow the biblical God and claim that we are simply working of basic philosophical principles. In other words, if goodness is real and thus exists in an essentially good God, the necessary result is a Hell as I have described.

On all this, I note that your points are moving further away from my initial post. Would you like to direct your comments toward the actual argument I put forward?

You then followed up with another post which I will quote:

And if you think eternal torture can be good, you are practicing moral relativity. So what's your point? You seem to accept as axiomatic that objective morality can only emanate from a deity. I don't see that to be the case; it seems to me that it could be the result of genetics as well, which is not an argument ad populum. It's more ad biologicum.

First, as the original post made clear, the moral issue regarding eternal torture is only a problem if the torture is externally inflicted as a punishment. I have argued, however, that it is a natural, and logically necessary, consequence. The torture people will feel in Hell is no more morally problematic than the pain people feel when they sprain their ankle or burn their finger.

Second, genetics does not produce objective morality. At best, it produces an agreed upon standard of right and wrong. If I choose to go against my genetically induced behavior, though, there is nothing wrong with what I have done on your view. I've simply acted in a way that your biology does not prefer. You may as well say that my preference for one ice cream flavor over another is wrong because you, for biological reasons, prefer a different flavor.

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

Davin,

First, you argued that Sophus' point was not an ad populum. You are mistaken. As you quoted, I stated explicitly, "To argue broad agreement makes it objective would be a logical fallacy called an ad populum fallacy" (Emphasis added). Whether or not Sophus was actually arguing that evolution or societal constructs produce morality, the line of questioning naturally tends in that direction, and if anyone moves on to make the argument based on such broad agreement, then they effectively are making a "because the mob says it is" based argument. AKA, ad populum.

Second, you argued that no goal posts have been moved. In the strictest sense, I agree. However, in essence, I disagree. While I am having specific discussion with specific people, and while I fully recognize that there is no such thing as a monolithic atheism, you also must recognize that there is a general consensus concerning things such as Hell. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of ideas, not playing silly rhetorical games. If Asmodean or MTK don't take the traditional "hell is evil" line, then they are free to say so. I will assume, however, that they do. I'm sure that when you meet a theist, you expect them to hold certain positions. If we have to stop and verify every position before we have any discussion, we could never get to any discussion. Now, the purpose of this thread is (supposed to be) to talk about how Hell can be morally justified, or, put different, how Hell is consistent with a moral God. At best, to ask for proof of Hell is off topic. More likely, it's simply moving the goal posts, since the argument normally put forward (by atheists generally) is that Hell is inconsistent with God, not that there is no evidence of His existence. Again, I'm interested in general discussion of this concept, and so I take it that those who take the negative stance on my argument assume the moral inconsistency if God and Hell, and that much more if they are atheists, both of which are clearly the case with Asmodean and MTK.

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

HS,

I should have been clearer in my request for clarification! You used your terminology perfectly well. That wasn't what lost me. What lost me, and still loses me, is this statement: "This altered essence that goes to Hell when I die isn't me." Assuming that your essence in Hell is different from you, then you would be correct. But can you tell me where you get the idea that my concept requires your essence to be altered? You say that I have to prove that Hell doesn't alter your essence, but I fail to see any reason to think that your essence would be offered. Can you show me where you think my argument would imply that it does? That's what confused me before, and that is where I am still confused.

As far as Hell not containing literal fire, I've already pointed out to you that much of language concerning Hell (and Heaven) in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical. I gave several basic reasons to think that is the case. To expand only a bit, if there were fire, there would be light, but the Bible describes Hell as completely dark. At this point, we simply apply the standard rules of human language. We generally assume a statement is literal unless there is something in our experience or in the nature of the wording that forces us to take it non-literally to have meaning. As such, when I say, "It's raining cats and dogs" you don't actually think dogs are falling from the sky. You know from both your experience (we use that phrase to speak of heavy rain) and the language itself (it rains water, not animals) that the phrase is figurative. Just the same with the biblical statements regarding the afterlife. Perhaps the gold in Heaven, for instance, is clear, but we have no reason to think that it is. John had never seen clear gold, and neither had his readers, so there is no reason to think that he intended such language to be taken literally, anymore than he did when he described Jesus as being a door meant that Jesus had hinges!

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

Martin,

Concerning goal posts, as I noted to Davin above, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not Hell is logically consistent with a good God. To take, then, Davin's point, either your request that I first prove Hell is real (or that God is good, or whatever) is at best irrelevant, and at worst it is moving the goal posts, since the general claim among atheists is that Hell is incompatible with God. In other words, I am challenging a basic argument commonly put forward (and specifically put forward by Thump). To ask me to prove yet a different issue is to move the goal posts.

Concerning moral standards, God does not have a different moral standard than we do. There is one moral standard, but God is not "under" it, not does He "decide" it. Thinks are moral or not relative to their consistency with God's nature. God does not behave in a manner and then call it good. God acts according to His nature, and since His nature is good, His actions are also good.

Finally, concerning evidence, there is plenty, and outside of the Bible at that. The evidence is in the fact that humans behave as if that there really is such a thing as right and wrong. If right and wrong really exist, then a moral God exists, and if a moral God exists, then my argument is that Hell exists at least as I have described it. Now, perhaps there really is no right and wrong, but the fact that we behave as if that it really does exist is, if nothing else, evidence for the position. The fact that most of the people on this board think that Hell really is wrong and that God really has done evil things is, I submit, evidence for my claims, both specific and general.

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

A good (from his own point of view since good is subjective) and moral (same parentheses) god creates a place with fire and torture and whatnot... Yeah. Sure. Why not.

1. If good is relative to God's nature then good is not subjective.
2. My entire post argues that the fire is figurative language for severe anguish, and that anguish is consequential rather than punitive.

If you would like to respond to my actual argument, I'm more than willing to discuss the matter. If not, then okay. Nothing says you have to engage in any conversation you don't want to.

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

_7654_

Let me ask you an honest question. Did you read my post before you made yours? The four statements I quoted were statements about what Hell is not. The rest of the post goes on to explain what it is. For you to ask, "Well then what is it?" without dealing with the substance of my post is rather silly. Just to humor you, however . . .

1. It's the natural consequence of sin.
2. As Hell is a natural consequence, no one is there arbitrarily, but that does not mean anyone does or does not deserve to be there. When you accidentally stub your toe, you don't "deserve" the pain. You hurt because that is what naturally happens when you stub your toe.
3. People who are ignorant of heaven and hell will obviously have no feelings on the matter. People who are aware of Hell, however, rightfully have a negative emotional response. As my thread is directed to those who have just such a negative feeling toward Hell, I am pointing out that they should not expect to feel better about the basic concept following a logical demonstration of the consistency of God and Hell.
4. Considering you never discussed a single piece of my actual argument, I find it amusing you think you "shredded" it. In any case, none of these four opening statements are arguments, as I first stated. They are statements about what Hell is not to frame the discussion about what Hell is. As many (Christians) argue that there is no Hell, I want to make clear my position is nothing so simplistic as that.

Would you, then, like to respond to the actual concept I have put forward?

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

tymygy,

1. Assumption of Hell and God:

As I already stated, yes, my argument assumes both of these. My purpose in this thread is only to meet the common objection that a good God and Hell are fundamentally incompatible. If you would like to discuss my argument as to why they are compatible, which I have presented, I am more than willing and very interested in that discussion.

2. Why create Hell?

Read the OP. It is a logically necessary corollary to a good God's creation of free moral beings.

3. What about people who have never heard of Jesus?

Yes, they have the same chance as anyone else. God is perfectly capable of saving those who seek after Him. This, however, is a different topic, so if you would like it addressed, please start a different thread.

4. "Tell me why didn't jesus just forgive the children who sinned? Why make them suffer if he DOES NOT HAVE TO."

It is clear from this that you did not read the first argument at all, much less the thread, as I have dealt with this.

5. Would I make my daughter burn forever?

Of course not, and neither does God. I suggest you read the argument I presented.

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

Thump,

Your recast of tymygy's point is perfectly acceptable. You said, "A perfect creator would have no need to punish his creations. A perfect creator would create perfection."

Of course, my basic argument is that Hell is a logically necessary corollary to the creation of free moral agents, and so there is nothing in Hell that suggests a lack of perfection. Further, my first qualification in the OP is that Hell is not a place for the punishment of sins. As such, the objection fails there as well.

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

J, you said:

"Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?"
Those who died in Christ will exist exactly in accordance with their natures, just as those who died without Christ will. The nature of those who die without Christ will be different from the nature of those who die in Him, in that the former will be resurrected completely separated from God (and thus, with all goodness in them being negated) and the latter being united with God (and thus, all goodness exemplified in them).

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

The rest of the thread was interesting enough discussion about the nature of morality, but I'll let it go unless something directly comes up with reference to my argument. Again, to restate my basic position very briefly:

Hell is that eternal state of affairs in which all goodness is negated from existence due to the simple fact that all goodness is by definition rooted in God's nature. As such, those who die without God are resurrected completely separated from Him (in an experiential sense) and thus can experience no goodness of any kind. The suffering of Hell, then, is not punitive but consequential.

Further, this is a logically necessary conclusion so long as (1) God is good and (2) human beings are moral agents. If God is not good, then there is no reason to suggest that good and evil exist, much less that Hell does or does not exist or that it is or is not compatible with God. If, however, God is good, then all goodness is rooted in His nature, and goodness requires that one not force themselves on another (that would be, as I call it, divine rape). If humans are not moral agents, then there is no reason to suggest that humans will or will not suffer (or enjoy) moral consequences, either temporally or eternally. If they are, however, then all morality is fundamentally rooted in God, meaning a complete severing of fellowship with God means a complete severing of participation in goodness. The complete loss of goodness is the state so described in this thread as Hell. The moral argument for God's existence, then, also implies that Hell exists, and can thus be stated:

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

As this argument affirms both the goodness of God and the moral agency of man, it constitutes evidence not only for God's existence, but for Hell's existence as so described.

[i_am_i]

J, you said:

"Okay. So those who die with Christ, then, will not be tortured by their own natures, is that correct? And that state of affairs, is it that which we call Heaven?"
Those who died in Christ will exist exactly in accordance with their natures, just as those who died without Christ will. The nature of those who die without Christ will be different from the nature of those who die in Him, in that the former will be resurrected completely separated from God (and thus, with all goodness in them being negated) and the latter being united with God (and thus, all goodness exemplified in them).

I think I'm starting to get an angle on your idea of what happens to people when they go to hell.

People who don't die "in Christ," no matter how wonderful, loving, caring, creative they were, no matter how much joy they brought to themselves and others, no matter how much they loved their family as their family loved them, no matter what those people did to help others and selflessly work to improve others' lives, those people will be ressurected in what you call hell and all their goodness will be negated.

Is this what you're saying?

If it is, even if it isn't, here's what's wrong about that kind of thinking. Already you've divided humanity into two groups, those who are "in Christ" and those who are not. And all religions do that, all religions make distinctions between those who are on their side, so to speak, and those who aren't.

The fact that you are speaking as an advocate for a religion casts a great deal of doubt on the reasoning behind what you're writing here, at least as far as I'm concerned, can you understand that?

And can't you see that saying "some die in Christ and some don't" makes absolutely no sense at all because you haven't explained what "in Christ" means?

So...what does "in Christ" mean? Is it a technical term?