Hell: An Excessive Punishment

[Deva]

I say that because even after selecting a filling, humans still mostly display that they have been filled with a "bitter" drink. It leaves me feeling disgusted at times about humanity. I would guess that certainly there are outliers to every average, but for the most part I think this explanation matches with what it says is a need for Christ. Would you not agree?

 

No I cannot agree to your statement of a "need for Christ." Certainly it is true that there are some human beings that are bitter and very angry. I view that as a temporary stage, brought about by circumstances, that I hope they will grow out of eventually. I think everyone has the capacity to overcome ignorance. When you posit a need for Christ, you are bringing in an outside force that is going to fill the person with something other than the "bitter drink". I don't think that is real. Your disgust with humanity is something you must deal with yourself, as difficult as that is, otherwise you will continue to carry it. Its all in your mind and in your attitude, End3.

 

As to this statement:

I think it has to do with the condescending attitude of non-belief. I learned to despise this, indirectly, I think, as my ole dad was much like this. I just think it is a destructive attitude.

 

Now that you understand where it came from, what are you going to do about it End3? Who cares what other people think? If I think your "Moses Glowing Face" and other things which you have posted do not make sense, really, so what? Don't project onto us the attitude you had toward your father. Just end it, otherwise you just drag yourself down.

[chefranden]

We're hungry for booze, drugs, sex, sports, etc, whatever that we find that will possibly fill our emptiness.

You are hungry for these various things because that is what keeps you alive and goes towards making another generation. Being empty is required for life. Stones are full. It is very difficult to put more stone into a stone. You only get permanent equilibrium upon death. You may have points of equilibrium indicated by feelings of content. But these will never last.

 

This emptiness is not an indication that there is something to fill it. It is an indication of life's processes.

 

The knowledge of the universe is infinite, so we'll never be full--we can't be.

 

What an arrogant presumption.

 

I wouldn't call this arrogant, but it is not true in that the universe is full of knowledge. It is only full of things that could be objects of knowledge.

 

Only a being who is hungry for something new will actually do something. Progress is driven by desire. And the hunger is something which is within us, so we do have something, we're not completely empty.

 

This friend, is pure conjecture on your part. It could well be explained otherwise.

 

It is not conjecture. Just because you can make an explanation that is different doesn't mean that the above explanation is not the case. Would you pursue God if you did not desire to do so? Desire is the motivator of life. Without desire you wouldn't get up to take a piss. Without desire you wouldn't put another morsel of food in your mouth. If in heaven or anywhere else you are completely fulfilled you will do nothing. You will just sit where you are placed like a stone.

 

What you need to do is be specific about your alternative explanation so it can be tested to see if provides better answers. It is not sufficient to just say there is an alternative explanation. Explain.

 

Edit: Your very idea of emptiness implies desire as the driving force. Without desire to be full what would be your problem with emptiness?

 

You suppose that God designed you to be empty. Fine, but why aren't you content to be empty? You say that Jesus is filling, but you are not filled so where is your evidence?

 

You are using emptiness as a proof of God. If you are right, then it is also a proof that God is an asshole.

[Ouroboros]

The knowledge of the universe is infinite, so we'll never be full--we can't be.

 

What an arrogant presumption.

 

I wouldn't call this arrogant, but it is not true in that the universe is full of knowledge. It is only full of things that could be objects of knowledge.

Aaah! Now I understand what he got upset over there. Well, my bad, what I mean is exactly what you said: The Universe and Existence (God, etc) is infinite, and the knowledge about those things are therefore also infinite, while we are finite beings, we can never be able to know all that infinite knowledge about all those things.

 

Now when I look back on the statement, it looks like the "Universe got an infinite knowledge," which wasn't my intention to say.

[Guest end3]

Let me try and be more clear. From a spiritual standpoint, I think we are void of spirit, good or bad, until we let an option, good or bad, into our bodies after a given age. I have found in my experience, that regardless of spiritual orientation, believers or non-believers, the outward conveyance of both choices generally yields the same message, one of more humanity than one of Spirit. That, a few days ago, was leaving me feeling empty myself in addition to starting another attempt at antidepressants.

 

I take it you don't believe in the Augustinian theory of Original Sin, then?

 

Do you believe that becoming Spirit filled is an choice we actively engage in, then, thereby making it our salvation, so to speak, not grace, but a work which we can boast of.

 

Before this certain age... what is the condition of the "human soul"?

 

My apologies, I went back and edited my statement, as it was unclear again.

 

"Let me rephrase that, as that is not too goodly....after a given age, we have the choice to fill our spiritual void with good or bad."

 

I can see how we are born into a world that "contains sin", but don't think humanity is born sinful as evidenced by the smiles on little children's faces and the way that they behave.

 

I think grace is what we have and see no evidence for predistination. My mind says predestination is real, but if it is, it is hidden from me. I think our choice is subsequent to grace....without Grace, we would have no choice. I don't see our choice as being a work.

 

Before this age, what is the condition of the soul?

 

As it was with Adam and Eve.

 

 

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain—

At least I am sure it may be so in Denmark." Bill S.

 

So walking and talking with God, Adam and Eve had a spiritual void....

 

I can see how you got there, but not what I ment....I ment they were already "in God" or "in Heaven", undefiled.

[Guest end3]

Edit: Your very idea of emptiness implies desire as the driving force.

 

yes

 

Without desire to be full what would be your problem with emptiness?

 

The wonderful feeling of empty....a kin to hell I bet.

 

You suppose that God designed you to be empty.

 

No, I don't think this was in the original design.....it is a product of the fall.

 

Fine, but why aren't you content to be empty?

 

Again, it's the great feeling(s)

 

You say that Jesus is filling, but you are not filled so where is your evidence?

 

laminin, the triple point of water, the water cycle, celluostic compounds used in water purification, children, old folks, I could go on...

 

 

You are using emptiness as a proof of God. If you are right, then it is also a proof that God is an asshole.

 

Not necessarily, just our place in "time". It seems to be realtive anyhow, you could be a rock....

[florduh]

End, I don't follow you as well as I used to.

 

Are you saying we are all empty without Jesus, but you have Jesus and still are empty?

 

I admit to being confused.

[Guest end3]

End, I don't follow you as well as I used to.

 

Are you saying we are all empty without Jesus, but you have Jesus and still are empty?

 

I admit to being confused.

 

I don't know that is that big of stretch F...I don't remember the specific verse, but remember something along the lines of "being made" and "in the full knowledge"....I could look a few up if you would like. So again, I can still be empty but gaining in God. I just don't think we are "full" until we are dead to this world.

[Naiya]

The video was great, summed up pretty much my feelings on hell.

 

I was able to take an anthropology class called "the roots of hell" a couple of years ago and it was one of my favorite classes. What the video didn't mention was that the idea of the "fiery hell" (as well as many other ideas) came from Zoastrianism. Only the hell in Zoastrianism, curiously, is NOT an eternal punishment--the fire is meant to burn away your sins, cleanse your soul and make you soul light enough to ascend to heaven.

 

Personally I never believed in hell nor demons nor the devil to begin with. I grew up in a "figure it out for yourself" family. My parents are both Christian and pretty much no matter what I say I don't believe in, they still say I'm Christian because I was "baptized as a baby so it's too late now!" It's more of a joke than anything. I'm pretty grateful to have them, though.

 

Anyway back to my other point. Universal Reconciliation is becoming popular among a lot of Christians these days. In other words, Jesus' gift is yours whether or not you "choose" to "accept" it, and everyone is saved no matter how bad they are or what they believe in. The problem in this is, of course, that if you believe it you pretty much aren't considered Christian anymore. The good thing is, under this belief you CAN logically still see God as being forgiving and loving if in the end everybody is healed, saved, and so on. You no longer have to worry about "Well, why would God create people who would never in their lives know Jesus existed and be damned for it?"

 

That worked pretty well for me for a long time, but eventually that whole thing fell apart, too. It reminds me of the saying "THE CAKE IS A LIE." It's just a nice pleasant fantasy that people make up so they can drag us through a series of horrible sadistic experiments.

 

Basically, to believe in UR, you have to throw out a lot of the Bible. Almost all of the OT, everything Jesus said about hell, and so on. Pretty much what you're left with is a handful of phrases and parables that Jesus probably actually said because they're the only things consistent with a loving God. And at that point, you just realize that the only "good stuff" left in the Bible is pretty much known to be universal truth (golden rule and so on). A lot of people just stay there, but others like myself are more apt to go "well what's the point of all this praying and wasting my time trying to understand the cryptic messages of a guy I don't even know existed when it seems like I can figure it out better on my own?"

 

But I'm rambling. I just wanting to bring up universal reconciliation since that's how a lot of the liberal Xians get around the hell issue.

[Kuroikaze]

Most of you seem to want to know why I hang around or come back. I think it has to do with the condescending attitude of non-belief. I learned to despise this, indirectly, I think, as my ole dad was much like this. I just think it is a destructive attitude. I probably continue to fight against it as it still appears the wrong choice to me to this day.

 

What exactly do you find condescending about non-belief? I ask this, because I don't see anything inherently condescending about pointing out, when another person claims to have special knowledge about the creator of the universe, that they have no such thing. If anything I see most of the condescension running the other way.

 

That is not to say non-believers are never condescending. I have certainly been so, but it has nothing to do specifically with my lack of belief, but more to do with people who believe very stupid things.

How does one manage to NOT be condescending with someone who thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old? Do you think you might be a bit condescending with someone who believed Elvis is still alive?

 

What specifically do you find destructive about non-belief? You don't believe in Hinduism do you find your lack of belief in that religion destructive? If not, then why is our lack of belief in your religion, in particular, destructive? Help me out here because I'm having a difficult time figuring out to what you are referring.

 

You mostly seem to take an objective approach to explaining things in your life. I have come to believe that that is a result of backlash from your experience(s). I am sorry if that is uncomfortable to you, but it is my observation. I do think you are a decent human.

 

You are probably right, I have no problem admitting so. Our thought processes are a result of our combined experience of the world. So what?

 

What do you feel is so bad about taking an objective approach to explaining things? It works in every other area of life, why are you so disturbed that it be applied to religion as well?

 

With regard to belief, I have a hard time dismissing things like laminin, the triple point of water, celluostic compounds for water purification, Moses's glowing face etc., all, to me, are alluded to in the Bible. I would like to know if you think they are coincidence or where you store these in your thoughts.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Moses probably never existed, the first five books of the bible were not in a completed form until around 500 B.C.E. and was complied from oral tradition. Most scholars think even the earliest parts of the first five books weren't written until around 800 B.C.E. at least 700 years after Moses supposedly lived.

 

There is no evidence for his existence from the time he actually lived. So I have no idea what you expect me to make of, what basically amounts to, an old Jewish folk tale about a man whose face started glowing when he saw god.

[Kuroikaze]

In all seriousness K, why do you find these thoughts disgusting? FWW, I do have things that I find enjoyment/fulfillment on a periodic basis in this life......some kind of cool ones actually. BTW, I appreciate your attitude over the months.....I have come to respect your input these days.

 

I think I find it a bit disgusting because it feels like it devalues us as human beings. Our value is no longer intrinsic, but extrinsic, based upon God's or some other supernatural entities' valuation of us.

 

I see people thinking of themselves as worthless trash without that supernatural valuation, and it makes me sad for that person. I have seen the kind of depression and self loathing that line of thinking can lead too. Hell, I've lived it, I never hated myself more than when I was a Christian. Now, I'm comfortable with myself, both my imperfections and my good parts.

[Guest end3]

I think I find it a bit disgusting because it feels like it devalues us as human beings. Our value is no longer intrinsic, but extrinsic, based upon God's or some other supernatural entities' valuation of us.

 

You have any examples of the majority and their intrinsic good? I could use a pick me up...

[MathGeek]

I think I find it a bit disgusting because it feels like it devalues us as human beings. Our value is no longer intrinsic, but extrinsic, based upon God's or some other supernatural entities' valuation of us.

 

You have any examples of the majority and their intrinsic good? I could use a pick me up...

 

How about the simple fact that the majority of human beings in the USA are not criminals? How about the simple fact that some people don't let materialism be their driving force? How about the simple fact that people still respect for their elders? How about the simple fact there are good people out there who live day to day without being thanked? How about the simple fact that many people can be relied on for assistance? How about the simple fact that many people were not swindled by the lie that Obama stands for change? How about the simple fact that there are students who work their butts off to do good despite what the rest of their peers think? How about the simple fact that atheists follow the law even though it appears philosophically two-faced in your mind?

 

Do I need to go on? I find those things to be intrinsically good regardless of the personal motivation.

[Kuroikaze]

I think I find it a bit disgusting because it feels like it devalues us as human beings. Our value is no longer intrinsic, but extrinsic, based upon God's or some other supernatural entities' valuation of us.

 

You have any examples of the majority and their intrinsic good? I could use a pick me up...

 

Well, it may seem like a niggling point, but I didn't actually say "intrinsic good" but "intrinsic value." People are naturally a mixture of both good and bad...or in other words every person does things that have results they are not happy with, and others things with which they are happy with.

 

The majority of people are neither good nor bad in any clear sense, they are just going through their lives trying to get from one day to another. I can not claim I am any different for the most part. However, just because the majority of people never do anything spectacularly good doesn't mean they have no value.

 

A person who cures a disease may seem to be more valuable than the great mass of people, but the one who cured the disease knows that is not the case. His act is valuable precisely because it will make life better for everyone else.

 

Most "good" or "bad" happens in small everyday choices. The guy who gives up his seat on the train for an elderly person, for instance.

 

One thing I can think of in my recent life was that my parents pretty much gave me almost 1500 dollars when I was short on money to live on when I moved to Japan. I'm in my 30's now, certainly far past the point where my parents owe me anything either legally or ethically. They could have just said, "hey, you're and adult figure it out yourself." However, I don't think it even crossed their minds to do such a thing, because that is just how they are.

 

Edit: A person does not need to be perfect in order to be valuable.

 

I'm reminded of a quote from "Kenichi" one of my favorite anime.

The main character, Kenichi, finds out that this other character, who is generally just pain in the ass, is in trouble and needs saving, Someone else asks Kenichi why he would bother to save this guy and kenichi says:

"Even a bad friend is still a friend"

[OnceConvinced]

1. Pondering this for only moments of my existance today, whose choice is it to remain separate from the parent? In the case of God, I am thinking that God has made a way for his children to be with him. So again, is it his choice or ours?

 

Like a previous member, it was not my choice to be seperate from God. I simply realised one day that he was not there. I begged and begged God for a fresh touch from him for even a revelation or a sense of his presence. Nothing. There was no choice involved. It was a horrible conclusion. The God of the bible was a crock. I had simply been deluded all those years.

 

2. As no one seems to have a clear definition of what hell is, how can we know if separation from him is not like "eternal damnation" or "a lake of fire" or "hell" or whatever.

How can one even be sure there is a hell at all?

 

3. Typically in life, I have witnessed children making the decision not to talk to their parents for an extended period of time, not the other way around.

What we have here for the majority of us is an invisible parent who we thought existed and who it became clear was only a figment of our imagination. Anyone who would disown a parent in reality still knows they actually exist. With God it is not the case.

[Guest kcdad]

You are hungry for these various things because that is what keeps you alive and goes towards making another generation. Being empty is required for life. Stones are full. It is very difficult to put more stone into a stone.

 

Can you put more person inside a person?

[Tabula Rasa]

I haven't read all of these posts, but I'm going to throw this out here. End3 want to know why I deconverted? Because I could no longer believe the blasphemous lie that God sends people to eternal torment because they don't worship him or live up to arbitrary moral standards. That's right, I said it.

 

It's BLASPHEMY regardless of whether or not God exists to say that the universe is run by an omnipotent tyrant who created humanity just so he could give them the choice of being eternal slaves or inmates of a prison of the most horrific kind.

 

Honestly, what part of Omnipotent do christians not understand? All powerful, capable of doing ANYTHING. Could shrink the Andromeda galaxy and put it in a mason jar. Could make time run backwards and sideways.

 

An all powerful being who possesses and is master of all reality, all there is, was and will be, is not going to care if it's worshipped or not. Were it to desire worshippers, it could make some that would have free will, but would still choose to worship it, because it's worship would be the ultimate delight to the worshipper.

 

I don't quite know what runs the universe, but it's name isn't YHWH, Christ, or Allah.

 

Whatever it is, it's something much, much,

 

BIGGER.

[agnosticator]

end3, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING WHAT YOU MEAN AS TO "EMPTINESS" IN POST #146.

[shantonu]

With respect to the Tabula Rasa's post, I agree: but this is not something that Christians themselves haven't thought of. The idea that either (1) God would not condemn all people or (2) that humans are capabable of intrinsic goodness (and therefore do not deserve the torments of hell) goes waaaaay back almost to the beginning of Christianity itself.

 

I'm often amused by the fact that ex-Christians have such a limited understanding of Christian history. Thus they feel compelled to reject something because it seems ridiculous and that only now do they see that it's ridiculous--which angers many because it seems like they have wasted part of their lives.

 

But Christians have long recognized that many of these dogmas and doctrines are ridiculous and ought to be rejected. That's why there is such a rich history of diverse belief among those who can rightly claim to be Christians.

 

Of course the notion of Hell is blasphemous. But we've known that something was wrong with the notion of hell since Pelagius in the fifth century.

[florduh]

I'm often amused by the fact that ex-Christians have such a limited understanding of Christian history.

 

Yes, it's rather amusing how ignorant we ex-Christians are.

 

Most people are rejecting what they were taught. Not everyone is a scholar, but there are many scholars and former pastors here. The realization most people seem to have when they deconvert is that the Bible is a highly flawed document with a shady history. Since the book is the entire basis for all versions of Christianity, all Christian beliefs are discarded. There is equal evidence for a Hell and no Hell, tongues and no tongues, and also for various other doctrines. That is why there are thousands of denominations, and of course each one the only correct one.

 

For the record, former Christians generally have a better understanding of church history and the Bible than practicing Christians. That's why they become former Christians.

 

It is meeting places like this where we learn more about the various beliefs that we didn't personally experience in our religious journey. It's amusing to me how not only practicing Christians who visit here, but ex-Christians as well, like to explain how we all have the wrong view of the religion and that we have not interpreted the Bible correctly.

 

We may not have your extensive knowledge, but we know Christianity and the Bible are bullshit.

[Antlerman]

I'm often amused by the fact that ex-Christians have such a limited understanding of Christian history. Thus they feel compelled to reject something because it seems ridiculous and that only now do they see that it's ridiculous--which angers many because it seems like they have wasted part of their lives.

 

But Christians have long recognized that many of these dogmas and doctrines are ridiculous and ought to be rejected. That's why there is such a rich history of diverse belief among those who can rightly claim to be Christians.

 

Of course the notion of Hell is blasphemous. But we've known that something was wrong with the notion of hell since Pelagius in the fifth century.

Yes and no. It depends what exposures you had as a Christian, what organization, what theology you were a part of. I can't speak for all ExCs here, but it would not surprise me if a huge percentage of us came out of your more American Evangelical flavor. Trust me, they do not talk about other views except in a light that puts them down in order to make themselves look good. I had never even heard of Pelagius until many years after leaving behind those views in my religious past. To me it's not a surprise that there's a steep learning curve to be had when one has lived life having information withheld from you.

 

For those who don't know who Pelagius is, this is worth your read: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...st_pelagius.htm

 

I know that Catholicism has adopted a more "semi-Pelagian" theology, that man is born fallen, but once he's saved then his nature has been changed to a good one. Leave it to the Catholics to try to appease both camps.

[Tabula Rasa]

Great read Antlerman!

 

I particularly liked this part:In conflict with Pelagius, Augustine was particularly concerned with the chance that if it were actually possible for a man to always choose to do good on his own and based upon his own nature, then the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross would become unnecessary.

 

I very MUCH like that, that human beings don't need to be "saved" to be good people.

 

Pelagius, wherever you are, thank you for trying to put some common sense into christians heads, if there's an afterlife,

I'll be shaking your hand when I get there.

Tab

[Guest kcdad]

How about the simple fact that the majority of human beings in the USA are not criminals? How about the simple fact that some people don't let materialism be their driving force? How about the simple fact that people still respect for their elders? How about the simple fact there are good people out there who live day to day without being thanked? How about the simple fact that many people can be relied on for assistance? How about the simple fact that many people were not swindled by the lie that Obama stands for change? How about the simple fact that there are students who work their butts off to do good despite what the rest of their peers think? How about the simple fact that atheists follow the law even though it appears philosophically two-faced in your mind?

 

Do I need to go on? I find those things to be intrinsically good regardless of the personal motivation.

 

1) Not criminal has more to do with the nature of criminal laws than human behavior. (As Peter Beagle wrote: The fundamental problem in society is not criminals, it is the law.)

 

2) Your "simple facts" are much too simple, and not very factual.

 

3) as for your fact about students... I have found it is the rare student that "works his butt off", in contrast, most do as little possible to achieve whatever degree they can in order to ... surprise!!!! get a better paying job... there is that dang materialism sneaking in...

[MathGeek]

How about the simple fact that the majority of human beings in the USA are not criminals? How about the simple fact that some people don't let materialism be their driving force? How about the simple fact that people still respect for their elders? How about the simple fact there are good people out there who live day to day without being thanked? How about the simple fact that many people can be relied on for assistance? How about the simple fact that many people were not swindled by the lie that Obama stands for change? How about the simple fact that there are students who work their butts off to do good despite what the rest of their peers think? How about the simple fact that atheists follow the law even though it appears philosophically two-faced in your mind?

 

Do I need to go on? I find those things to be intrinsically good regardless of the personal motivation.

 

1) Not criminal has more to do with the nature of criminal laws than human behavior. (As Peter Beagle wrote: The fundamental problem in society is not criminals, it is the law.)

 

2) Your "simple facts" are much too simple, and not very factual.

 

3) as for your fact about students... I have found it is the rare student that "works his butt off", in contrast, most do as little possible to achieve whatever degree they can in order to ... surprise!!!! get a better paying job... there is that dang materialism sneaking in...

 

I guess I am not you or him. Those things inspire me regularly.

[Guest kcdad]

How about the simple fact that the majority of human beings in the USA are not criminals? How about the simple fact that some people don't let materialism be their driving force? How about the simple fact that people still respect for their elders? How about the simple fact there are good people out there who live day to day without being thanked? How about the simple fact that many people can be relied on for assistance? How about the simple fact that many people were not swindled by the lie that Obama stands for change? How about the simple fact that there are students who work their butts off to do good despite what the rest of their peers think? How about the simple fact that atheists follow the law even though it appears philosophically two-faced in your mind?

 

Do I need to go on? I find those things to be intrinsically good regardless of the personal motivation.

 

1) Not criminal has more to do with the nature of criminal laws than human behavior. (As Peter Beagle wrote: The fundamental problem in society is not criminals, it is the law.)

 

2) Your "simple facts" are much too simple, and not very factual.

 

3) as for your fact about students... I have found it is the rare student that "works his butt off", in contrast, most do as little possible to achieve whatever degree they can in order to ... surprise!!!! get a better paying job... there is that dang materialism sneaking in...

 

I guess I am not you or him. Those things inspire me regularly.

 

And that is different from believing in fairies or the innate goodness of our government, how?

[shantonu]

Yes and no. It depends what exposures you had as a Christian, what organization, what theology you were a part of. I can't speak for all ExCs here, but it would not surprise me if a huge percentage of us came out of your more American Evangelical flavor. Trust me, they do not talk about other views except in a light that puts them down in order to make themselves look good. I had never even heard of Pelagius until many years after leaving behind those views in my religious past. To me it's not a surprise that there's a steep learning curve to be had when one has lived life having information withheld from you.

 

For those who don't know who Pelagius is, this is worth your read: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...st_pelagius.htm

 

I know that Catholicism has adopted a more "semi-Pelagian" theology, that man is born fallen, but once he's saved then his nature has been changed to a good one. Leave it to the Catholics to try to appease both camps.

 

You're right. We've touched on this subject before, but I find the ex-Evangelicals simply do not give enough credit the diversity of Christian experience. It's frustrating because I understand their anger, but I fear they will wind up with an atheism that is as intolerant and ignorant as the fundamentalism they rejected.

 

So we hear such dismissive statements as "God is Santa Claus for adults," etc. My reaction is something like . . . really? Is that really it? Thomas More, Erasmus, and the other 2000 years of culture and achievement just flushed down the toilet like that?