Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Burn In Hell, Fire-Kindling !


Llwellyn

Recommended Posts

The title is click-bait, I know, but even so, please bear with me for a minute, and then take a look at the funny cartoon at the bottom.  My point:  Yahweh's curses and his blessings resolve to the same thing for a human.  His hatred and his love cannot be distinguished from the perspective of a human.  A human thrown into the fire of Yahweh's love or thrown into the fire of Yahweh's hatred would not perceive a difference.   Heaven and Hell amount to the same sense percepts.  The upshot of this is that there is no reason to wish to receive blessings rather than curses.  Even if true, there would be no ultimate pay-off for Christian "faith."  We have reason to fear, but we've always had that, with or without Christianity.

 

Humans are complicated animals, and there is no evil thing that is not, in some sense, good for us.  There is no good thing which is not, in some sense bad.  So-called "curses" and "blessings" will always admit to their other aspect, especially when each of these treatments is pushed to high degrees.  For example, humans have at least some taste for pain, which is surely a felicitous thing in a world of unavoidable and more-or-less constant pain.  If Yahweh were to dial up the comfort for a human and dial down the pain, then humans would suffer -- the degree of suffering varying from person to person based on their individual impulses and habits.  Not all human desires can be satisfied all at once.  The satisfaction of some human desires comes at the cost of sacrificing satisfaction of other human desires.  Life involves never-ending suffering and learning -- and there is no ideal world of unmitigated bliss and complete knowledge.  All is compromise.

 

Contrary to Plato, there is no unalloyed good and no unmitigated evil, at least not as practically experienced by a human.  The theory of Absolute Goodness, as described by Plato is a theory that works only so far, and fails when pressed passed its limit.  The theory of relative goodness, as offered by Darwin, is a theory which yields vital benefits long after Platonism has failed.  It is impossible to imagine, with a human imagination, an existence where nothing at all "mars the perfect, and holy, and blessed peace that reigns in heaven" as Jonathan Edwards says in his sermon "Heaven, a World of Love."  

 

We are resolved to continue as we are.  Yahweh may take his way, and we will take ours; he has devised evil against us, the Bible says (Jeremiah 18:11, Joshua 23:15) and he may bring it if he pleases; we have devised joy, and we shall go on in it.  Christianity is less "false" than it is inutile.  What do you think?

 

WhistlinginHell.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree with the sentiment of the above, but I'm not sure I agree with some of the details.

 

It seems to me that your statement "there is no ideal world of unmitigated bliss and complete knowledge" is only true on the assumption that Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, then there is such a world. Hence I'm not sure that we can make this statement unless we first demonstrate that Christianity is false. But if Christianity is false, then Yahweh's curses and blessings are merely figments of the imagination, and the discussion quickly disintegrates.

 

I agree entirely that Christianity is inutile. I also think that it is false. More importantly, I think that it is inutile precisely because it is false. If it were true, then it would be the most useful thing imaginable. Only in a world where Christianity is false can we recognize that it is a pointless belief system.

 

Further, and perhaps more to your point, I think that the doctrine of heaven and hell is absurd and inconsistent. I think you touch on a valid point when you discuss the notion of the inaccessibility of perfection (in both the positive and negative sense); however, again, I'm not sure that this view can be correct except in the case that Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, then it may simply be that we are unable to comprehend either perfect bliss or perfect agony in our present state, but both may nevertheless exist. "Now we see in a mirror dimly" and all that. But I digress.

 

I'm interested to see what others think about this topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the spirit of the OP.

 

I have long held that even if Christianity is true then it is indeed pointless within its own terms. God creates us sick and hurts us for His own amusement. None are good in His eyes, all have fallen short, the gift of salvation is given "freely" but cannot be earned, all we do is fifthly rags to the lord......

 

What is the point of it then

 

Texts that says "Christ will deny knowing them" and "we are turned away for being lukewarm"

 

Blessed are those that hear the word of the Lord and keep his commandments. Yet Christians ignore the commands they don't like all the time. Does this disprove Christianity, no, but certainly proves that most Christians are full of hypocrisy and ignorance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Llwellyn,

 

First, thanks for The Far Side—my favorite!

 

Overall, your point is sound. However, I think an argument can be made that for some people Christianity is useful in spite of its falseness and the logical inconsistency of unmitigated bliss/torment—not useful in a total sense, but I imagine there are people who use Christianity to find some direction in life, some peace of mind, some form of community support, etc., that helps them along even though based on groundless faith. Lies can be quite useful sometimes, but usually only of limited usefulness.

 

It may interest you to know that in the Orthodox Church there is a fairly popular view of heaven and hell that is similar to your logic—Hell is simply the experience of god by those who have not prepared themselves for life with god, and Heaven is the experience of god by those who have made the proper preparations. The essay by Alexandre Kalomiros, “The River of Fire,” popularized this view in recent times, but it can be found in writers such as Gregory the Theologian. Orthodox iconography graphically shows that the view has traditional roots. There is a traditional icon of the final judgment that shows a river of fire coming from the throne of god, turning into a glorifying light and a tormenting flame—same source, different experience based on the receptivity of the individual to the light of god. Those that are prepared actually participate in the “Energies” of god: this experience of theosis is considered a real union with god that makes the human “divine,” and able to experience eternal bliss in just the same way god supposedly experiences the bliss of his own existence. The self-same Energies of god are an eternal torment to the unprepared. In addition, even though heaven is considered a state of eternal bliss, according to Gregory of Nyssa and other theologians there is no end to growth in this experience. This is the difference between the glorified and god--god holds his bliss perfectly, in infinity, while the glorified will enjoy ever-increasing participation in the infinte bliss of god. (You'd think eventually their heads would explode from this over-abundance of happiness.) This is just one way a Christian tradition has chosen to side-step your objection.

 

While I struggled with doubts about Christianity for many years, the one thing that kept me believing was a fear of offending god and ending up in hell. When I finally realized what you suggest, that (if god exists) god is going to do as he wishes in spite of what I do or do not do, I realized I might as well live my life according to my lights and let him send me to hell if he wants. That was a big step toward my deconversion. At the end of the day, though, I didn’t become an unbeliever because I wanted to sin without fear of punishment or because I found Christianity inutile—I became an unbeliever because I finally admitted the “facts” of the Christian faith were unconvincing. But each person’s experience varies, making life most interesting!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are not the kind of beings for whom hell can be "hellish" or heaven can be "heavenly."  Even if true, the Absolute Good of Platonism, or the evil of Yahweh, will never prove themselves in the perception of humans.  Disillusioned, I disagree with your statement that "If it were true, then it would be the most useful thing imaginable."  I don't think it is necessary to first demonstrate that Christianity is false, nor do I think that such a demonstration is possible.  I also disagree that the doctrine of heaven and hell are internally absurd and inconsistent.  Rather it is Christian anthropology that is inaccurate.  Place a human in heaven or hell, and the results are going to be different than what Christians predict.  

 

Here are the facts which make all the Christian abstractions irrelevant:  a human experiences both good and evil in each external stimuli.  Even good things have certain evil consequences and effects for the human.  There is no good which does not have a price, and the greatest goods have the heaviest prices.  Likewise, there is no evil thing which a human cannot experience with joy and gratitude, which a human cannot adapt to.  Humans have a grab-bag of instincts and desires, not all of which are compatible with one another.  Getting rid of "sin" would not be anything like an absolute improvement, but would simply be a different compromise that the person would negotiate for themselves.

 

Jeff -- the Eastern Orthodox eschatology is correct that there is no workable difference between saying that "Yahweh curses the damned" and "Yahweh blesses the damned."  Neither can we expect there would be a distinction between a heaven of love and a heaven of hatred.  Saint Basil the Great says, “The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves."  Likewise the joys in heaven cannot have God as their cause, but ourselves.  Heaven and Hell would be indistinguishable milieus;  whatever it can be for us is determined by us.

 

But the Eastern Orthodox "River of Fire" concept is an example of Platonism, which is, like Christianity, bad theory of humans.  As Darwin has taught us, we are a species in constant flux, adapting to our environment, and being relatively fitted to the environment in which find ourselves.  There is no promise that we can have complete and total satisfaction of all of our assorted desires.  There are no stable and lasting essences, no self and no world except the self and the world that we create, no invisible reality at the end of visible reality, no expression of the human spirit that refers to anything different than its experience.  The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.  Milton.

 

haters-gonna-hate-300x210.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are not the kind of beings for whom hell can be "hellish" or heaven can be "heavenly."  Even if true, the Absolute Good of Platonism, or the evil of Yahweh, will never prove themselves in the perception of humans.  Disillusioned, I disagree with your statement that "If it were true, then it would be the most useful thing imaginable."  I don't think it is necessary to first demonstrate that Christianity is false, nor do I think that such a demonstration is possible.  I also disagree that the doctrine of heaven and hell are internally absurd and inconsistent.  Rather it is Christian anthropology that is inaccurate.  Place a human in heaven or hell, and the results are going to be different than what Christians predict.

 

Ok. It seems some clarification is in order.

 

First, my statement regarding the utility of Christianity. If Christianity is true, then the ultimate point of existence is to achieve communion with God. As this end can only be achieved by adhering to Christianity, Christianity is almost by definition useful if it is true.

 

When I say that the doctrine of heaven and hell is absurd and inconsistent, I am speaking somewhat informally. It seems to me that the Christian who says "I will be in heaven, and you will be in hell" cannot be speaking the truth. If my mother (a Christian) and I were both to die tomorrow, and Christianity is true, then my mother will be in heaven and I will be in hell. She should be experiencing perfect bliss and I should be experiencing perfect agony. But surely my mother's bliss would be, at least in some sense, better if I were not in hell. Further, surely my torment could, at least in some sense, be worse if my mother were also being tormented. Hence it seems to me that heaven and hell cannot simultaneously exist, which is why I say that the doctrine is absurd and inconsistent.

 

Here are the facts which make all the Christian abstractions irrelevant:  a human experiences both good and evil in each external stimuli.  Even good things have certain evil consequences and effects for the human.  There is no good which does not have a price, and the greatest goods have the heaviest prices.  Likewise, there is no evil thing which a human cannot experience with joy and gratitude, which a human cannot adapt to.  Humans have a grab-bag of instincts and desires, not all of which are compatible with one another.  Getting rid of "sin" would not be anything like an absolute improvement, but would simply be a different compromise that the person would negotiate for themselves.

 

Again, I agree with what you say here, but it seems to me that it only holds true if Christianity is false. If Christianity is true then human experience is imperfect. The physical world is merely a flawed reflection of the spiritual world. The fact that good and evil are intertwined in our experience is a direct result of the fall. Once all is made right, this will no longer be the case.

 

It also seems to me that if Christianity is true then it doesn't really matter whether we think that getting rid of sin is an improvement. What matters is that God says it is. On the Christian view, whatever God says goes, hence getting rid of sin would actually be an absolute improvement if Christianity were true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Jeff -- the Eastern Orthodox eschatology is correct that there is no workable difference between saying that "Yahweh curses the damned" and "Yahweh blesses the damned."  Neither can we expect there would be a distinction between a heaven of love and a heaven of hatred.  Saint Basil the Great says, “The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves."  Likewise the joys in heaven cannot have God as their cause, but ourselves.  Heaven and Hell would be indistinguishable milieus;  whatever it can be for us is determined by us.
 
But the Eastern Orthodox "River of Fire" concept is an example of Platonism, which is, like Christianity, bad theory of humans.  As Darwin has taught us, we are a species in constant flux, adapting to our environment, and being relatively fitted to the environment in which find ourselves.  There is no promise that we can have complete and total satisfaction of all of our assorted desires.  There are no stable and lasting essences, no self and no world except the self and the world that we create, no invisible reality at the end of visible reality, no expression of the human spirit that refers to anything different than its experience.  The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.  Milton.

 

 

Exactly. Christianity--and religion in general, in my opinion--goes wrong at the outset in its anthropology. Whatever it may say about god is (almost?) always predicated on what it says about humankind. Make a mistake there--by saying, for example, that humans are subject to original sin, or that humans are destined for life beyond death, or that humans must appease the adverse forces of the universe by some kind of sacrifice--and all kinds of theological assumptions follow.

 

And you are correct about EO ties to Platonism, or at least to Neoplatonism. The borrowings are obvious and many. There are times one might as well be reading the Enneads!

 

Good stuff, Llwellyn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is almost by definition useful if it is true. . . .  If Christianity is true then human experience is imperfect. 

 

To posit a mode of existence which is fundamentally different from the human existence that you and I have lived, is to posit an existence which is not human at all, and goes beyond the bounds of what is humanly intelligible.  Assuming Christianity is true, it would be relevant to you only if your whole nature were utterly changed, and if so, an eraser would have to be applied to the word "you" that appears earlier in this sentence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Christianity is almost by definition useful if it is true. . . .  If Christianity is true then human experience is imperfect. 

 

To posit a mode of existence which is fundamentally different from the human existence that you and I have lived, is to posit an existence which is not human at all, and goes beyond the bounds of what is humanly intelligible.  Assuming Christianity is true, it would be relevant to you only if your whole nature were utterly changed, and if so, an eraser would have to be applied to the word "you" that appears earlier in this sentence.

 

 

This is a very strong point. It seems to me that what this entails is that the claims of Christianity are incomprehensible. To my mind, this renders them meaningless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with the conclusion that Christian truth is unintelligible, as is every other absolute truth.  I don't deny that they are true, but I can say that I don't see the application.  "The Heart wants what it wants - or else it does not care."  Emily Dickinson.

 

Spongebob-Nobody-Cares%252525255B1%25252

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Christianity is almost by definition useful if it is true. . . .  If Christianity is true then human experience is imperfect. 

 

To posit a mode of existence which is fundamentally different from the human existence that you and I have lived, is to posit an existence which is not human at all, and goes beyond the bounds of what is humanly intelligible.  Assuming Christianity is true, it would be relevant to you only if your whole nature were utterly changed, and if so, an eraser would have to be applied to the word "you" that appears earlier in this sentence.

 

 

This is a very strong point. It seems to me that what this entails is that the claims of Christianity are incomprehensible. To my mind, this renders them meaningless.

 

 

Hey Llwellyn and disillusioned,

 

I think some forms of Christian tradition have recognized this weakness and taken steps to avoid the inconsistency. IF humans were originally created for participation in god (theosis or divination, in Orthodox parlance); and IF humans fell from this original purpose by sin (thanks bunches, Eve!), then ultimate glorification is a recovery of the full potential of human nature lost in the Fall, not a complete replacement. II Peter 1:4, "partakers of the divine nature" and all that. The Orthodox model for this is the Transfiguration of Christ on Tabor. Of course, the basis for the original teleology of humankind being one of union with god is a major unfounded assumption. (And once more, Christian Platonism is pretty evident here, I think.)

 

Again, I don't think this affects your argument in the main, but it does show that some Christians have recognized inherent weaknesses in their thought and have tried to make some sense of them.

 

What do y'all think?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi StJeff

 

I think you've raised an interesting perspective on this issue. We should not lose sight of the fact that many Christians are actually very intelligent (for heaven's sake, I used to be an intelligent Christian). The fact that a particular view of the world is problematic does not mean that those who espouse this view are necessarily idiots. Intelligent people can be wrong.

 

The upshot of this is that some Christians will recognize that their worldview has shortcomings and will try to rectify these issues. As you rightly point out, many Christians have attempted to address the issues that we have heretofore been discussing by claiming that humanity's original purpose was to be in communion with God, and that we have fallen from this purpose due to our sin. Hence, the argument goes, that when all is "put to rights", we will return to our original state, ie, we will be back in a state of communion with God.

 

On this view, hell can be seen as being merely the absence of God. It seems to me, however, that this view of hell is somewhat pathetic. If all we have to fear is the absence of communion with God, then I fail to see how we have anything at all to fear. The Donut Man approach to theology fails in my view because I am currently living my life without Jesus, and I don't particularly feel as though I am anything like a donut.

 

So it seems to me that Christianity without the spectre of an unimaginably horrendous future which awaits those who do not conform is pointless. Why should I give up perfectly nice things in this life if there is no danger of punishment in a life to come? Further, if my only reward for this abnegation is to be communion with a being whom I find repulsive, why should I even give this offer of "salvation" a second thought?

 

This is all to say nothing of the unfounded nature of the assumptions of the view of Christianity that you raise. Suffice it to say that the more watered-down Christianity becomes, the more pathetic I find it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi StJeff

 

I think you've raised an interesting perspective on this issue. We should not lose sight of the fact that many Christians are actually very intelligent (for heaven's sake, I used to be an intelligent Christian). The fact that a particular view of the world is problematic does not mean that those who espouse this view are necessarily idiots. Intelligent people can be wrong.

 

The upshot of this is that some Christians will recognize that their worldview has shortcomings and will try to rectify these issues. As you rightly point out, many Christians have attempted to address the issues that we have heretofore been discussing by claiming that humanity's original purpose was to be in communion with God, and that we have fallen from this purpose due to our sin. Hence, the argument goes, that when all is "put to rights", we will return to our original state, ie, we will be back in a state of communion with God.

 

On this view, hell can be seen as being merely the absence of God. It seems to me, however, that this view of hell is somewhat pathetic. If all we have to fear is the absence of communion with God, then I fail to see how we have anything at all to fear. The Donut Man approach to theology fails in my view because I am currently living my life without Jesus, and I don't particularly feel as though I am anything like a donut.

 

So it seems to me that Christianity without the spectre of an unimaginably horrendous future which awaits those who do not conform is pointless. Why should I give up perfectly nice things in this life if there is no danger of punishment in a life to come? Further, if my only reward for this abnegation is to be communion with a being whom I find repulsive, why should I even give this offer of "salvation" a second thought?

 

This is all to say nothing of the unfounded nature of the assumptions of the view of Christianity that you raise. Suffice it to say that the more watered-down Christianity becomes, the more pathetic I find it.

 

Great thoughts here, disillusioned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Christians have recognized inherent weaknesses in their thought and have tried to make some sense of them.

 

Christianity's irrelevance is only a "weakness" to a person who hopes that it will be relevant.  I do not.  Christianity is an infinitely adaptable meme that will, when possible, be "all things to all people."  1 Corinthians 9:19-23.  If you have an interest, Christianity will offer to meet it.  That is why Christianity exists in various forms, including the Eastern Orthodox Platonist variety.  No doubt there are also forms of Christian Atheism.  But Christianity will be nothing to me.
 
Salvation as theosis is not a model of human satisfaction that has worked for me.  I have not experienced life as an "ascent" or "descent."  People in this world are about as happy as they have made up their minds to be.  Life is a compromise among competing goods;  a choice of lesser evils.  Pick another compromise, and you will simply rearrange your set of pains, regrets, joys, fears and hopes.  A person's "sins" usually exist for a reason.  Across time, different compromises are negotiated, but there will always be frustrated desires.  Thus, every experience and every act is both "good" and "evil" to a human because it satisfies some instincts and frustrates others.
 
A bad theory can confuse us, tangling our thinking, and disrupting our behavior.  With a theory of "Absolute Good" in the brain, wretched Christians do wretched things.  Romans 7:24.  There is no single "right" answer to moral questions.  There are multiple "right" answers, each of which is also "wrong."  According to us, the autonomous consciousness of man is the ultimate reference point in all ethical questions.  Life, like evolution, is an unguided amble hither thither and yon;  it is not a climb along an irrational ladder to nowhere.
 
11E41.jpg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

 Yet Christians ignore the commands they don't like all the time. Does this disprove Christianity, no, but certainly proves that most Christians are full of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. john 15:14

That is a verse those cherry pickin' christians hate. 

They don't do whatsoever jesus asks them yet have deceived themselves that they are still his friends and are going to heaven. Maybe the inspirational wordo fht eday on christian websites should be the word hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.