Does Hell exist?

[Orangey]

No, there is no "hell." I don't even know why we choose to distract ourselves with such nuisance questions when there are clearly more pressing problems to attend to in our waking lives. And if I want intellectual distraction, I'd sooner read a good piece of fiction or set about dissecting some more interesting bit of theory.

 

[KDude]

Also, it's silly to think that a God would punish creatures whose entire purpose and means of survival depended upon questioning things. Humans wouldn't have gotten out of the mud if they didn't have that.

What's the point of a God who wants this? Taking some people's ideas to their conclusion, it would mean that God indulges in getting his jollies off by burning them for the very things he made them for. Like I said, that God is worse than a toddler. It's on a Cosmic Jeffrey Dahmer level of behavior.. like some kid mad at his dog for something a dog simply does, and cutting his heart out, and burning his entrails for it. All for being a dog and nothing else. Real cool god you got there.

Anyways, I'm done.

 

[A window to the soul]

No, there is no "hell."

Hells bells, then come on down to Texas in July!

 

[Orangey]

Hells bells, then come on down to Texas in July!

You're right. Houston in July is probably the closest approximation to hell that I've experienced.

 

[A window to the soul]

You're right. Houston in July is probably the closest approximation to hell that I've experienced.

Amen.

 

[wildflower]

I don't believe in a God in general, but if I even try to humor the existence of God, I always come to this stopping point. God can be omnipotent, benevolent, or neither. He can't be both. A being with infinite and all encompassing power the chooses to create a world racked with suffering and by some peoples' telling a place like hell, simply cannot be benevolent.

God didn't create a world wracked with suffering but he does permit suffering. the way i understand it is that love requires freedom. love can't be forced so we have been given free will and have to have something else besides the good to choose in our actions. kinda sucks but love that isn't free just isn't love. no one (i hope!) likes the idea of hell but put it this way, are you going to invite jeffrey dahmer into your home to live with you while he's still a serial killer? that would kind of put an end to the party in heaven if you get my drift.

Why would I take that leap of faith as opposed to any other? This is where the whole joke about the flying spaghetti monster came from. Since either way I have to completely suspend skepticism and critical thought and just embrace something that requires no evidence, why not worship the flying spaghetti monster as opposed to your so-called god?

i think it would be crazy to suspend skepticism and critical thought and just embrace something that requires no evidence. i have never met anyone who has done this to follow God and i honestly can't imagine that anyone would. personally, i had no interest in God/church/religion until i had a spiritual encounter. after that it would have been supremely foolish for me not to embrace God having experienced what i did. i think the question isn't so much one of lack of evidence, although i don't believe one can prove the existence of God, or suspending critical thinking but more what one's starting point is. meaning, if you don't believe anything beyond the natural world can happen then yeah you are going to be hard pressed to believe anything spiritual exists when people claim to have any evidence or supernatural experiences. it might be good to realize that it is only in the western world for the last 500 years that people generally thought the spiritual didn't exist (i.e. naturalism). the rest of the world and for the rest of time before the enlightenment many (most?) people believed in the supernatural. i absolutely think critical reasoning is important in matters of faith, and the lack of it is one reason why the christian church in the west is such a mess, but it isn't the end all be all. reason can only take you just so far...

We, and other sentient beings if they exist (and I believe they do), are the sole arbiters of truth. That doesn't even necessarily mean we get it right, but the point is that we are the only ones that can decide for ourselves what we take as truth and what we don't. There literally isn't any way to surrender our belief to an external force. Supposedly giving in to the infallible word of God is just another name for a specific kind of arbitration about what the truth is.

i largely agree with you here. while i don't think i am the sole arbiter of truth i can only know said truth subjectively and by faith. it's not possible for humans to be objective. that is supremely arrogant. we see through a glass dimly...

oh yeah, i believe in hell (eternal separation from God) and, wait for it...demons too. lol

 

[Fluffywolf]

Hell exists only for those who believe in it. For these people, their hell is as real as their sun that rises each morning.

...

 

[Nicodemus]

 

[Lark]

Also, it's silly to think that a God would punish creatures whose entire purpose and means of survival depended upon questioning things. Humans wouldn't have gotten out of the mud if they didn't have that.

What's the point of a God who wants this? Taking some people's ideas to their conclusion, it would mean that God indulges in getting his jollies off by burning them for the very things he made them for. Like I said, that God is worse than a toddler. It's on a Cosmic Jeffrey Dahmer level of behavior.. like some kid mad at his dog for something a dog simply does, and cutting his heart out, and burning his entrails for it. All for being a dog and nothing else. Real cool god you got there.

Anyways, I'm done.

Yes indeed. What is the point of God? Such a (hu)man centric view.

Better to ask what is the point of man?

 

[Totenkindly]

No, there is no "hell." I don't even know why we choose to distract ourselves with such nuisance questions when there are clearly more pressing problems to attend to in our waking lives. And if I want intellectual distraction, I'd sooner read a good piece of fiction or set about dissecting some more interesting bit of theory.

I'm still not reading Dan Brown.

 

[KDude]

Yes indeed. What is the point of God? Such a (hu)man centric view.

Better to ask what is the point of man?

I'm not asking what the point of God is. I never said I was an atheist. Go argue that with someone else.

I'm asking what the point of a specific God is who condemns the very things we're good at (in this case, questioning things). If God exists, then who else would ultimately be responsible for endowing humans with that skill to begin with?

This is what religion has come to? There was a time when so called "pillars" of the church, like Saint Augustine, strove to balance Faith and Reason. Now we have people saying Reason is a spirit of rebellion.

 

[Tantive]

Yes indeed. What is the point of God? Such a (hu)man centric view.

Better to ask what is the point of man?

To exist.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not asking what the point of God is. I never said I was an atheist. Go argue that with someone else.
I'm asking what the point of a specific God who condemns the very things we're good at (in this case, questioning things).

That's why Jewish take on popular mythos seems a bit different from Christian. For example, the fundie view of Eden is that man fell from grace, a bad thing, and now has to be redeemed. But this contradicts with the very things that are positive in our survival as a race, as you bring up.

I think the rabbis view the "fall" more as a positive thing and even inevitable, due to the curiosity of people.

 

[Qlip]

That's why Jewish take on popular mythos seems a bit different from Christian. For example, the fundie view of Eden is that man fell from grace, a bad thing, and now has to be redeemed. But this contradicts with the very things that are positive in our survival as a race, as you bring up.

I think the rabbis view the "fall" more as a positive thing and even inevitable, due to the curiosity of people.

Yeah.. the fall seems mostly to be seen as an unfortunate, but necessary step in creation. I like that. My Christian ex didn't, and tended to squirm when I tried to spin Eve taking a bite out of the fruit at the serpents behest as a good thing.

 

[Lark]

That's why Jewish take on popular mythos seems a bit different from Christian. For example, the fundie view of Eden is that man fell from grace, a bad thing, and now has to be redeemed. But this contradicts with the very things that are positive in our survival as a race, as you bring up.

I think the rabbis view the "fall" more as a positive thing and even inevitable, due to the curiosity of people.

I dont see humanity as the true authors in the "fall" it is the action of Satan, it is a tale of his turning away from God in all its finality, because he destroys and seeks to poison the greatest in God's creation, via man, because of the reciprocal and special relationship, to poison God's self.

Humanity is a victim and a means to an end, this is also the important point, the greatest evil that people can do is to make others a means to their own end, to objectify and rob of any and all sanctity or individuality. As no one should be a means to anything, they are ends in themselves.

It is Satan that is fallen, incontrovertably so, mankind was a victim, a pawn, I dont believe it was inevitable or a consequence of man's nature.

 

[Lark]

Yeah.. the fall seems mostly to be seen as an unfortunate, but necessary step in creation. I like that. My Christian ex didn't, and tended to squirm when I tried to spin Eve taking a bite out of the fruit at the serpents behest as a good thing.

I dont know how people can consider it a good thing, the advent of death, the disapperence of paradise. Its a uniquely modern thing to somehow put a positive spin on that and consider what was gained as some how preferable or equivocal to what was lost. It was a lousy trade and mankind were the losers.

The genesis story is a metaphor anyway, a parable which is important because it can be thought or reflection provoking.

 

[Qlip]

I dont know how people can consider it a good thing, the advent of death, the disapperence of paradise. Its a uniquely modern thing to somehow put a positive spin on that and consider what was gained as some how preferable or equivocal to what was lost. It was a lousy trade and mankind were the losers.

The genesis story is a metaphor anyway, a parable which is important because it can be thought or reflection provoking.

If you view the Genesis story as a metaphor for self awareness, as I do, then it's a good thing, and also bad. As I said, I don't believe God is a good god in the traditional sense. To be able to see things, as separate from yourself, to have knowledge, you automatically then start making dichotomies of everything, death/life, good/evil. To be people and to be aware requires a fall. And I'm going to once again say that I really can't accept the premise that an Omnicient and Omnipotent God could ever do anything that he did not precisely mean to do.

 

[Lark]

If you view the Genesis story as a metaphor for self awareness, as I do, then it's a good thing, and also bad. As I said, I don't believe God is a good god in the traditional sense. To be able to see things, as separate from yourself, to have knowledge, you automatically then start making dichotomies of everything, death/life, good/evil. To be people and to be aware requires a fall. And I'm going to once again say that I really can't accept the premise that an Omnicient and Omnipotent God could ever do anything that he did not precisely mean to do.

It wouldnt be my premise that an omnicient and omnipotent God would do anything that he did not precisely mean to do. Sorry if I've given that impression.

Dichotomies are not my favourite thing, most of them are false when they are thought out or thought about, often it is a case of and/or instead of either/or. At least that's my experience.

 

[tinker683]

I've been to hell once. It's a tourist trap in the Bahamas. So many bad puns and cliches there

 

[Totenkindly]

I dont see humanity as the true authors in the "fall" it is the action of Satan, it is a tale of his turning away from God in all its finality, because he destroys and seeks to poison the greatest in God's creation, via man, because of the reciprocal and special relationship, to poison God's self.

That's one way to look at it, although as a whole the Bible still focuses primarily on "human beings" and God's interactions with them. The Satan concept doesn't comprise a lot of the Bible, the concept changes throughout scripture and isn't even handled consistently, and in the end the view seems to be that the Satan figure is destined for destruction and is not worth thinking about further. To sum it up, Satan has already lost and is not really worth the time or effort or respect to consider in great detail -- he is irrelevant.

... and if that's not good enough for you, just pop in a few Carmen CDs and I am sure you will be convinced.

It is Satan that is fallen, incontrovertably so, mankind was a victim, a pawn, I dont believe it was inevitable or a consequence of man's nature.

From the framework you have chosen to interpret the Bible in, yes, that's what you believe.

My point was merely to say that, in my reading from different perspectives, I was kind of fascinated that the Jews -- with such close ties to Christians -- actually read the Genesis stories much differently than I had been taught within my faith.

And who decides what the "right meaning" of such stories are? Certainly not you or me.

I dont know how people can consider it a good thing, the advent of death, the disapperence of paradise. Its a uniquely modern thing to somehow put a positive spin on that and consider what was gained as some how preferable or equivocal to what was lost. It was a lousy trade and mankind were the losers.

Uh... I don't think it's a "modern" thing. Although postmodernism definitely contributes to that sort of thing occurring.

The genesis story is a metaphor anyway, a parable which is important because it can be thought or reflection provoking.

Then why not let it provoke your thoughts and reflections a little bit, before immediately dismissing viewpoints from other prominent faiths? It sounds more like you're just trying to clinch a definitive view here. Why not reflect a little bit instead?