hell

what are your views on hell? who gets in? is it a place? does it even exist? i don’t think i believe in hell. first, the whole concept of god eternally damning his own creation, when it is inevitable that people will sin is a concept that is difficult to grasp. also, the term hell could be described as the absence of god. if you believe that terminology and that god is omnipresent, you cannot believe in hell.

heaven is being in the presence of God.

hell is being in the absence of God.

We live in the world in between.

You have to make a choice.

Just in case you misunderstand how boring this stuff is to me, I choose hell.

The world inbetween is allowed to see the grace but not fully experience that.

Hell is like he said voidance.

But my thinking is the world inbetween needs a bit more grace of god otherwise everybody will feel like brad. But hey Its gods plan what do i know?

Why would anyone choose Hell?

what the fuck

As Milton’s satan put it “I would rather Rule in Hell than Follow in heaven”

Kierkegaard once said something like “The opposite of sin is not virtue, but freedom.” Therefor, hell is the opposite of freedom.

So… Are you truly free, or slaves to your own sins?
(That is, I belive, the quetion behind Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be.”)

its been so long but i dont think that was what hamlet was asking.

And i dont make the connection of sin vs freedom.
Freedom doesnt factor in heaven vs hell. Both are structured and allow no free will. infact i always considered freedom to walk hand in hand with sin. Simply because to sin you must choose to sin.

WHY WHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO GO TO HELL!!!

Well some people are Satan worshippers, so I guess they might choose hell to be with, or to serve Satan whom they worship. Personally, I don’t believe in heaven or hell.

or

Maybe to see what its like you know, take a vacation there. I know you will say that you can’t just try it out and leave, but why not? I mean, if Satan was once an angel and he got kicked out, why can’t someone go to hell and get kicked out? Maybe people get kicked out of hell for good behaviour

or

I’m sure others would just choose hell to be different, or to rebel. See what all the commotion is about. They would probably say something like “It can’t be that bad”.

What’s your take?

Because everything I value in this world is valuable precisely because it can be taken away. To be in the presence of God is to have everything for nothing, to have all of your questions answered means there is no reason to question, no reason to love, no reason to want, no reason to live.

There are many who argue that without God there is no reason to live. For me, it’s the other way around. There is no reason to live with God.

I can’t stop the endless debates on God’s existence, but I can respond by answering, “I don’t care.”

So with your loved ones, there is no reason to live… But it is the only reason to live. Brad, indifference is philisopher’s only enemy.

Man alone cannot be happy. And this is the finality of all, isn’t it? To be happy. To get as close as possible to being One. This is beauty.

And the connection of sin vs freedom… Choosing to sin is not actually choosing, but it’s letting your instincts tell you what to do, choosing not to choose, following the way of the self. So it’s not the rational part in you that chooses. Therefor, sin is choosing not to be free.

Me personally, I have alot of problems with the notion of eternal punishment. The problem I have with the idea of Hell is that eternal punishment is in no-way proportional in relation to the sin people have committed. No-one person can committ in a finite life-span an infinite amount of sin. Since hell is not proportionate to sin it cannot be considered just. No judgement that God makes can ever be snap or aribitary because God is ultimate justice. The understand of divine justice in the Torah is that God sees sin as cause and affect, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". This implies affect which is proportional to an action, that is the basis of justice and law in God eyes as well as ours. G-d’s justice is tempered by mercy, the two qualities perfectly balanced. Of the two Names of G-d most commonly used in scripture, one refers to his quality of justice and the other to his quality of mercy. “His mercy endures forever”

Based on a Jewish/Christian model of God, he is just and not injust, merciful, not cruel, therefore since eternal punishment is unjust and lacks mercy, eternal punishment by God cannot exist. God judges, but in the Tanakah God judes always with the ultimate aim of saving and restoration never senseless punishment: See these passages,

“[b]Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him” (2 Samuel 14:14).

“The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave (sheol), and bringeth up.” 1 Samuel 2: 6

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39).

“I will ransom them from the power of the grave (Sheol/Hell); I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave (Sheol/Hell), I will be your destruction!” (Hosea 13:11-14).

“For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men. (Lamentations 3:31-33)
[/b]
From these I deduce that whatever punishment there might be it will not of eternal duration, particularly the lamentations quote.

thats what my comparative religion teacher says exactly, those exact words. where did you get this? did you make it up? it just strikes me as a great coincidence that you would say the exact words that he said.

The same reason people do many things in philosophy, theology, or life- because they have a contrary nature. Choosing to be enterally satisfied with the Being that created you seems like the obvious answer, the easy answer, so it must be the wrong answer- the answer for ignorant people. "Choosing Hell" becomes appealing simply because one would like to be proud of the mental gymnastics they performed to justify the choice. Think of it this way: Imagine there are two essays, and you only have time to read one. The title of the first is:

“I want to go to Heaven because”
and the second is
“I want to go to Hell because”.
Which is the more interesting title? Which are you more likely to read? Any second grader can come up with 10 reasons to prefer heaven, but to prefer hell? Well now! That takes some creativity (not to be confused with wisdom)!
The second title titilates because it is ‘the last thing you would expect’. This is a huge problem- let me repeat a HUGE problem- with modern thought, especially theology I’ve noticed:
titilation = credibility.
Well, no it doesn’t.

Wow, that was a long time ago. Yes, I was trying to be provocative. No, I probably wouldn’t quite say the same thing now. Yes, I still think there’s a point in doing it.

This is an assertion. I’m not convinced that this is a desirable goal.

I made it up. The first three or four lines, however, are pretty straightforward. I would be very surprised if someone hadn’t already said it. That last sentence however, if someone else had used those words in that sequence, that would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Credibility is a strange word to use when it comes to theology. I don’t remember if I was titilated or trying to titilate, I do remember that I was trying to provoke and with luck start a discussion of definitions.

That didn’t happen. I failed.

I disagree that “choosing hell” is the easier answer. It wasn’t difficult to write those sentences and given the definitions, it seems like the obvious choice. Heaven would be something like the Q continuum or a permanent drug high and hell (Remember the definitions I presented here) a world where satisfaction, contentment, and yes loss, pain, and disappointment are still as we see them today.

Satisfaction and contentment come from achievement. Ecstasy and excitement come from temporary changes in the environment or are induced, forced by drug use.

I just don’t see how they can be related to a permanent condition and still be what we experience in this life. And with that said, it strikes me that life is simply the wrong word to use when it comes to permanence.

But for the record, if something like the choice presented in Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” were presented to me, I would get on the bus and not return.

Brad

If you think it's a  bit of an oxymoron, then it probably won't wind up being your field of choice, will it?

And yet the 100 word explanation is forthcoming. If I had said "I would rather be in Heaven than in Hell", who would even ask for an explanation?  I'm not concentrating on which is the more reasonable answer, I'm focusing on which is the titilating answer, the answer that requires a 'unique' justification. If you think "I want to go to Hell, not Heaven" is straightforward common-sense, then I can't help that. I stand by the observation. 

Well, unorthodox definitions become part of the explanation- Hell is preferable to Heaven where "Hell" means "Just like Earth" and "Heaven" means "a drugged-like state of no-mind". Heck, I could I justify "I'd rather eat poop than Pop-Tarts" if I work the definitions just-so. 

I agree with all this. I think that’s a big part of the reason why we have strife in this world, is to earn the satisfaction that comes from having overcome it.

That’s actually what I had in mind when you said this,

As I recall from the story (it's been some years), there were a number of theologians who remained in hell/purgatory simply because to go to Heaven would mean they couldn't do theology anymore.  I think that applies a lot in life- in Living, we're used to the chase, the riddle, the quest. It's really all we have. We all have a hard time picturing a catch, a solution, or a reward, and it's tempting to think that an End couldn't possibly be as good as the journey. Certainly we have all been taught to think in this way.

Doesn’t that bother you? That people don’t question it? We’ve taken two concepts and turned them into what? Look at the responses. “I would rather be in Heaven” has become “I would rather be in a place I want to be.” “I would rather be in Hell” has become “I would rather be in a place I don’t want to be.”

If we look at it that way, the sheer in-credibility of my response becomes clear.

But my definitions aren’t unorthordox. They are, as far as I can tell, standard, mainstream theology. I didn’t make them up. You’re right that we can say anything if we tweek the definition and my point is that that is what people do anyway.

It’s not been my experience that people believe that the process, journey, or path is better than the goal, precisely the opposite. The problem is that the goal is left undefined or is, in effect, a tautology.

Brad

Er, that people don't question the preference for "Always Awesome, All the Time" vs. "Smoking Turds in Hell"? No. No it doesn't bother me. People tend not to question whether or not the floor will hold them up when they get out of bed in the morning, and [i]that[/i] doesn't bother me either. 
The problem is, we know so little about Heaven and Hell, that we may as well[i] define [/i]them as "The Place you Really Really Would Love to Be" and "The Place you Really Really Hope you Never Go." All actual descriptions have been attempts to illustrate those thoughts, haven't they? Any illustration is bound to have holes, and maybe even ways in which the 'hell' allegory can be preferable to the 'heaven' allegory, but it seems like "Heaven is the one you want" is much closer to what the Bible and so on are trying to convey than any particular images of clouds, harps, and desolate sprawling cities with once-a-day bus visits from Above. 
 Simply put, I would say that if Hell seems more appealing to Heaven, it's a sign that your conception of one or both is skewed, and nothing further. 

I think that’s exactly how it boils down, once the allegory is stripped away.

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I’ve heard so very many people say “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey” in reference to spirituality that I’m sick to death of hearing it. On the other hand, each and every one of them seemed convinced they were being original and ‘breaking from the pack’ as they uttered such. So I’m really not sure who the majority is anymore.

Okay. That’s certainly how I think the terms are used. Not sure how many religious folks you’ll satisfy with that, but it works for me.

Well, it’s just another way of saying, “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” To borrow a line from Dennett, I think many people believe that it’s a good thing to believe, but they don’t actually believe it.

Lewis, for all his talk about Heaven, is actually very good at showing how it’s a good thing to believe, not just a good thing to say you believe.

My belief in Hell is this: It is indeed a place, but not a place for sinners per say. It’s a place where those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior go when they die. The Bible tells us that in Hell there will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. I believe that Hell is for eternity and once there, there is no going back.