DOUG – A loving God and Hell can coexist. People often refer to their God as a Father, so let’s consider a brief familial analogy. As a father myself, I often need to present consequences for my children. Just because there are consequences, it doesn’t mean there isn’t love. Hell is merely a consequence of choices. Just as my children’s “timeouts” are a consequence of inappropriate behavior.
BEN – Hi Doug, thanks for writing again. I appreciate you humoring me. So, if I understand correctly, you believe in a Hell where people can regenerate and go to Heaven? Hell is then just a timeout? Do you believe that people from Heaven go to Hell, as well when they need a timeout? Or do they never need a timeout? Do you believe this jumping in between ACTUALLY happens, or just COULD happen? And if our loves lead us to Heaven or Hell, where do these loves come from? This is a big question.
BRAD – I liked your last input, Doug. Ben, nobody is posting on this wall to say “they don’t know”. Maybe I’m a bit confused by your response. Will you rephrase: “Why do you choose an unverified version of the afterlife?” You know what’s funny? I find it easier to believe in Hell than Heaven. The love of evil seems so much more scary, and–well, more powerful then the love of the neighbor or the Lord. If there is no Hell, then I never want to die. We put serial rapists and killers to death on this earth because they don’t deserve life. It’s a cleansing. To think that you will be reunited with such sinners in an afterlife is like taking a punch to the gut. It’s sickening. There is a place that is reserved for such nasty human beings, and that place is Hell. Fire and torment? I don’t know. Everyone has there own take. It exists in some form or another… Maybe I’m brainwashed, but I’ll take that over living a life on this earth knowing that I share the same fate as the most evil people who have walked on this earth.
HOJO – Following up on Derek’s and Gray’s previous post, I think the introduction of logic and the removal of pure emotion is really helpful for me. Many people, in my experience at least, come to their beliefs on the after life because they just can’t imagine that this might be it for them. As a result, through a person’s upbringing (especially dogma, parental influence, societal influences) the role of heaven and hell emerge. So for me, I can see that if a person believes in an afterlife in the “traditional” sense, then concepts like heaven and hell might make sense. To me, it seems like we often build “castles in the sky” to support the stark realization that our life on earth may be it. Its a humbling thought, but a very real (and to me, likely) possibility. Its too bad this can’t be discussed over a cold beer!
BEN – Brad, I would hope that LOTS of people would post and say that “they don’t know”. I mean, there is TONS of stuff we don’t know, and certainly the existence of God, Heaven and Hell fit that category. I’m as agnostic as they get, so ‘I Don’t Know’ is an everyday mantra. Killers and serial rapists scare me too. We’ve evolved FEAR as an extremely strong emotion because those of us that were most accurately able to fear death, avoided it the best, and therefore procreated more successfully. Fear is real. No doubt about it. But for us to kill them because ‘they don’t deserve life’ is quite a leap. Are you SURE of this? Are you SURE that they don’t deserve life? Are you sure that they are ‘evil’, not just… very different & dangerous? Might Hell just not exist, along with God? Would that be an easier world for you to live in? Or are you only interested in telling yourself comforting things so as to feel better about the world instead of dealing with objective reality?
RYAN – When I talk about the afterlife, or anything related to it, it’s usually just as an interesting thing to talk about, cause for the love the Big Bang, it’s ALL just a guess. So for me, it’s just about guessing or supposing in a way that’s interesting or fun or makes my life seem better. Since I have no control over what the afterlife is or isn’t, I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it, and just live my life here the best way I can. And since it’s interesting to me to talk about it right now . . . any way we talk about “heaven” or “hell,” can only be described in reference to our own experience, which has all happened here – on this earth in this universe. So all I see in my own life is experiences that feel “hellish” or “heaven-ish,” and anything I may believe about the afterlife can only be described in terms of things I’ve already experienced (or imagined, based upon my experience). So for me, “heaven” and “hell” are here on earth in my own experience. I can’t speak for anyone else, but if you really examine what defines your experience and your beliefs about an afterlife, the same might be true for you.
DOUG – I wonder, if people don’t believe in Hell because they don’t dig on eternal damnation, then do they believe life in prison is wrong? I mean, if there is no afterlife, doesn’t life inprisonment become an “eternal” punishment?
BEN – I guess that would, theoretically, be eternal punishment in some eyes. The difference, as I see it, would be that by society deciding to put someone away for life is actually self-defense. In any supposed omnipotent God’s world, sending someone to Hell wouldn’t be an act of self-defense would it?
DOUG – Couldn’t Hell be viewed as a form of public defense, then? As God protecting others? And is that more or less noble than self-defense?
DEREK – Sure, but can hell have all the same perks and amenities that heaven does? If not, how come? Not in the budget? If hell is not a punishment of any kind, then who cares whether you go there or not? If hell is a punishment, then why is it necessary? Why would people have an extremely short amount of time on earth to “determine what their loves are” and then be judged one time at death as to whether they get to walk through door 1 or door 2? Doesn’t this seem weird? Also, like Ben said, if you believe that people have a soul and they live on after death, where does that soul come from? There is what you’re given at birth, and then your life experience after that. That’s it. Nothing can possibly come FROM a person, so how can we hold them cosmically responsible? It just makes no sense.
BEN – Yes, Hell could be public defense, just like jail. But Derek’s questions remain. Why does an omniscient, omnipotent God need to send people to be punished? If it’s not a punishment (worse than Heaven) that we can perceive, then what necessitates the differentiation?
DOUG – Why get caught up on Hell as punishment? Can’t it just be a choice of where somebody thinks he/she will be happiest? Does it help to think of Heaven as a place where a soul goes whose driving force is helping others while Hell is a place where a soul goes that wants to help itself only. Then Heaven can be seen as a place where everybody is trying to help each other and Hell is place where it’s every soul for itself. And I second Gray’s comment about this being a great debate and a wonderful forum. Kudos to all for having courage to “speak” openly. I’ve enjoyed this so much I’m thinking about making this an essay topic for my Senior English class. Maybe even push to have my students try to publish their thoughts
BEN – Doug, very cool. If you’d like a ’skeptic’ to come speak to your Seniors at any point (since they probably don’t have nearly as many skeptics in their ear as they do believers), I’d be glad to at least give them the ‘dissenting opinion’. I guess I look at punishment as meaning ‘less than ideal’. Since any omnipotent God could provide the ideal situation for everyone, why would he withhold this ideal from the people he sends to Hell. If they CHOOSE to go there and God is trying to reach them at all times (as you said he may be), what is he trying to reach them for? Aren’t they just as happy as those in Heaven? If not, is God not capable of convincing them that it’s better ‘up there’ and making them happier? If THAT’S the case, then 1) we need to figure out why God is so limited in the next life, and 2) We need to answer the original question of where did these loves come from, and why are they being attributed to our souls, which we were, allegedly, given by God anyhow. Right?
DOUG – Free will. It’s not that God can’t change people–it’s that He won’t. He wants us to decide. And no, I don’t think people in Hell are just as happy as those in Heaven simply because I know that when I do something nice for somebody else it’s a far more fulfilling feeling than when I do something to satisfy a personal pleasure, and if we view Heaven as a place where one exists for the benefit of others and Hell as a place for benefitting ourselves, then it stands to reason that one can be happy in Hell, just not as happy as those in Heaven. And what if C-A-T really spelled “Dog”? I just blew your mind, didn’t I?
CHRIS – These are Liam Gallagher’s thoughts on the matter, “I live for now, not for what happens after I die. If I die and there’s something afterwards, I’m going to hell, not heaven. I mean, the devil’s got all the good gear. What’s God got? The Inspiral Carpets and nuns. F*ck that.”
BEN – Wait, Doug, isn’t the realization that doing nice things for others produces a fulfilling personal feeling, isn’t that selfish if we pursue that feeling? I mean, what if doing nice things for people made us feel… worse? Aren’t we doing these things, as you say, for the benefit of ourselves, in the end? For that fulfillment? I guess the hard part about free will, for me, is that we are given our DNA and then we have experiences. What is the SELF? What is the thing that produces these loves, if it does not come from DNA or from without (experiences)? Also, let’s say there is free will. God has, according to many religions, come to earth in a human/written form to try to transform the world because everyone was on the wrong path. Are you saying that in the next life, no one tries to convince you of the right way to live? And if not, why are they incapable of appealing to the folks who choose Hell?
Whew! Things are picking up in the discussion. What do you think? Leave a comment!
CCD,
Ben
August 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm |
I think the idea that altruistic behavior is always selfish is tautological.
Everyone has a self. If you jump on a grenade to save someone else, it’s because you wanted to do it. By definition it could be called “selfish” behavior.
But calling everything selfish because everyone has a self doesn’t shed light on morals or conduct because it fails to distinguish important aspects of the self.
August 28, 2008 at 10:12 am |
Paul -
I agree that there’s still a distinction left hanging when you say “All behavior is selfish, if it’s what you want/love to do”. It’s a tough nut to crack, but I think this distinction might be easier to see in other people than in ourselves.
If I derive enjoyment or other benefit from being “good” or “kind” or “altruistic” that outweighs the costs, then I am acting to accomplish or realize my preference. Even if I jump in front of a train to save another person, knowing that it will kill me, it’s safe to say that I “cared more about” that person’s life than my own. Or I “preferred” their survival to my own. You never take a “selfless” action where you could truly say that you would rather have the outcome of not taking that action than the outcome of taking it… perhaps your preferences differ somewhat on different levels (I’d rather have more money, but on a deeper level, I’d rather you survive) but you will ALWAYS choose to act because you found one choice (and everything that goes along with it) preferable to another choice.
So where’s the distinction between selfishness and selflessness? I think it may have something to do with the difference between “mutual benefit” actions and “winner-loser” actions. Win-Wins are easy to judge – even when they are as intense as someone jumping in front of a train to save a stranger. Anytime I choose an action (which I will ALWAYS do because I prefer that action on some level) where there is a negative outcome for somebody else (all things considered, they would prefer that I had not taken that action) it will be a gray area.
It becomes even more complicated when we throw the “I know better than you what’s good for you” piece on there. I might prefer to “help” an alcoholic by refusing to give them a drink. They would prefer at that moment that I give them a drink. But I say to myself “they’ll be glad I didn’t give them a drink later.” And I’m quite possibly right. Then there are people who say “That man doesn’t think he wants me to keep knocking on his door to tell him about the god I believe in, but he’ll be glad I did when he goes to heaven.” And people who say… “John thinks he likes vanilla better. But chocolate is definitely better, so I’m gonna get that for him.”
So is selflessness relative based on perspective? Does it only have to do with intentions, or does the accuracy of your assumptions about what’s good for people and what will happen in the future affect it? When should I take away someone else’s choice and make it for them in order to “help them”? Is selflessness simply choosing to prefer the preferences of others above all else?
It could very well be that selfless/selfish evaluation is a purely subjective process, and you might not be doing anybody a favor by going around acting “selflessly” according to your own definition.
September 12, 2008 at 10:51 am |
Hell is an evil false doctrine. It is both unscriptural and lacks all common sense of decency. Free will is an impossible thing to posses and the scriptures declare the opposite. Visit bible-truths.com for more informations.