Hell.

[Warren Stupidity]

Do the Christian believers here actually believe in this fundamental part of the Christian creed?

If you do believe in this feature, the eternal torment of some, do you also believe that those tormented also, as per the rules, include all those who for whatever reason haven't followed the correct beliefs, regardless of their other actions in RL?

[virgogal]

1. The idea of hell for all eternity for one

transgression is ludicrous.

The idea of hell is ludicrous.

[yodermon]

2. salvation necessarily requires damnation.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. So you believe that billions are condemned to eternal torment?

[yodermon]

5. no.

Just pointing out the innate awfulness of xian precepts which are considered by mainstream followers to be axiomatic.

[dimbear]

4. I am assuredly among the damned, but I don't mind my horrific fate: it's a sacrifice

I make so that my Christian friends and relatives may enjoy heaven.

[patrice]

6. No. & No. Energy is conserved. The world/reality conserves your effect upon it. Here and now always.

Your energy that preserves love and service and supports truth is conserved in all systems as the effects of love and service and truth. Your energy that preserves fear and hate and supports falseness is conserved in all systems as the effects of fear and hate and lies. You can call the aggregate of these two sets of conditions "heaven" and "hell" if you want to. To the extent that your life, your behavior, has created heaven or hell, your presence, your effect, is encoded, conserved, in reality forever, in one form or another.

This applies to anyone, not just Christians.

[edhopper]

8. Energy

through entropy, dissipates into heat.
Using physics for "spiritual" explanations is irrelevant to the science. And comes off as nonsense.

[ManyShadesOf]

15. Is there no result

from what is done with energy?

[edhopper]

17. Saying "love is energy"

is a non-sequitor. Doesn't have any relation to the physical world.

[ManyShadesOf]

18. That's not what I asked you

[edhopper]

19. Sorry

What were you asking?

[ManyShadesOf]

20. you know

it might be possible ... but maybe not the time or place. Let's enjoy our Sundays

[edhopper]

21. Okay

[patrice]

37. That depends upon your assumptions, which are a result of perspective.

You have a right to any myopia you choose.

..........................

Work is a manifestation of energy. Love affects work, which affects the world.

[edhopper]

44. As you have the right to believe in unfounded

gobbledy gook.

[patrice]

52. It's "unfounded" gobbledy gook to think that what you do has a physical effect upon the world?

It's "unfounded" that the aggregate of all of the positively constructive physical effects of what people do COULD be labeled "heaven"?

It's "unfounded" that the aggregate of all of the negatively destructive physical effects of what people do COULD be labeled "hell"?

It's "unfounded" to suggest that the particular unique effect of an individual, those effects that are uniquely due to precisely who a person is, the results of what makes them who they are and not someone else, those physical changes wrought upon a physical reality by them and not by someone else, are their very own uniquely personal physical legacy in a physical world - pray, what is so ir-rational about any of this?

Perhaps you mistake YOUR OWN words for something the myopic bourgeoisie say doesn't exist, a god.

I suggest a few readings in linguistics, Chomsky is relevant here and, perhaps, something in the history of science for its exposition of the "nature of proof", such as Thomas R. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.html?id=xnjS401VuFMC

[edhopper]

79. I am not clear what you are saying here

On the one hand you seem to be talking about "positive" and "negative' energy going out into the Universe, or some variation of that.
On the other hand you seem to be asking if your actions have good or bad consequences, in a straight forward physical world.
The former is conjecture without evidence, the latter is self evident.

[humblebum]

42. Maybe not. If love is nothing more than an electro-chemical reaction

in the brain, then it is very much part of the physical world and if there is no non-physical existence beyond this life then that is indeed what "love" is.

[edhopper]

45. There is no foundation to believe that the electro-energy in the brain that leads one to feel love

is significantly different than any other emotion, nor that it doesn't dissipate as heat through entropy.

[humblebum]

48. I agree and it would foolish to think that love

is significantly different than any other emotion if every emotion and idea is nothing more than an electro-chemical reaction in the brain.

[patrice]

56. That's not all they are. They also organize the world in ways that are essential to what makes

one emotion or idea not the same thing as another idea or emotion, kind of like DNA.

[humblebum]

73. But still, at their base level, are they not all electo-chemical reactions in the brain?

I did not say they were the same reactions in the brain, nor how they are utilized once they occur.
One could actually ask the question, does love really exist? or is it really nothing more than a reaction in the brain.

Actually, I don't believe any of that because I am a spiritual believer and feel there is a definite connection. However, take the spiritual component away and what are you really left with? An electro-chemical reaction that spurs other actions that are caused by different electro-chemical reactions.

[patrice]

58. It's not a spiritual explanation; it's a physical one. And arent' you assuming a straight line?

From an organized effect to disorganization? Not only no loops, cycles or decreases in entropy, but also, even were I to yield your straight line, that nothing happening between organization and steady-state entropy matters?

[patrice]

72. BTW, tell me what is not physical about the spiritual, please. & BTW, BTW, Science is INDETERMINATE

on that which is irrelevant to science, not negative as you appear to assume.

I would like to recommend, again, some reading on the nature of scientific "proof".

[rug]

7. The essence of hell consists of the poena damni. You're asking about the poena sensus.

The poena damni, the pain of loss, is the absence of God. That is understood to be the absolute core of hell.

The poena sensus, the pain of the senses, is the popular nation of hell, fire and pitchforks.

The former is by far the worse. What the latter is is simply a matter of speculattion.

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=69.

As to who's there, I remember what a teacher said in high school, "Just because there's a hell, it doesn't mean anyone is there." There is a reason the Catholic Church will declare somone a saint but it has never declared anyone to be in hell. Damnation, meaning loss, is understood to be the absolute willful knowing rejection of God, a deliberate choice to be without God. That s a very high bar. Frankly, it is extraordinarily difficult to go to hell.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Oh hell did you even read your link?

More specifically do you or do you not believe what is written on that page?

[rug]

11. Yeah. Now why don't you discuss it.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Yeah what? Do you believe what is on that page?

[rug]

13. Yeah, I read it. I'm not convinced you understand it.

[ManyShadesOf]

16. "The absence of God"

similar to sin, Hell portrayed as disconnection from grace, from god, or whatever one chooses to call it.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. ok but that does not address "do you believe what is on that page".

It is a simple question. Yes or no.

[rug]

26. No it doesn't. If you don't know what that belief, it doesn't matter if anyone believes it.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. you can't answer the question, can you?

[skepticscott]

41. Time to declare rounds over

On the psych ward. Some people are just incapable and useless.

[rug]

50. What people? Psych patients, DUers?

Do you care to explain this bullshit?

[skepticscott]

59. It was explained to you once, at your request and in detail.

I expect you'll lie and say it wasn't, but too bad. No help for you there either.

[rug]

60. Bullshit does not improve with repetition.

[skepticscott]

61. Neither does the truth

that you're an utter waste of time. It's as true now as it ever was.

[rug]

62. If that is true you should spend your time more fruitfully than posting bullshit in reply.

[rug]

46. I can easily. In fact, the answer's already there.

The question is, can you understand the question you're asking.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. No the question is do you believe what is stated on the page you provided a link to?

It seems you cannot answer that question and have nothing but insults.

[rug]

68. You've already shown in 66 that you don't understand the concept.

Cherry-picking is not understanding and a fact is not an insult.

[trotsky]

74. This happens every time the topic of hell comes up with rug.

He plays this little coy game, getting more and more personal and insulting, all because he refuses to state his beliefs on the topic - though it's pretty clear what they are.

[rug]

75. If it's pretty clear, why don't you discuss the belief.

That's much more interesting than discussing me.

[trotsky]

76. I'm not interested in having this discussion with you. n/t

[rug]

77. Clearly.

[patrice]

64. You know the problem with that is going to be that word "God".

A problem I don't share, btw, because whatever else a God would be, it would have to be something beyond our conceptual/linguistic abilities. It wouldn't be possible to say much about something so essentially ineffable, beyond "I believe" which expresses, as you observe, somekind of relationship. Relationships can have various experiential qualities, including traits that could be referred to as more or less direct, more or less true or false, i.e. "heaven" and "hell" in your definition.

Words are not as absolute as many people want us to pretend they are, especially any word, affirmative or negative, associated with whatever a God would be. So, I'm okay with believing there is somekind of totality beyond our apprehension, even though by its nature we would not be able to posit anything about it - and - there's nothing in rational empiricism that says anything about that one way or another, because such a thing by its nature would be outside of rationalism's self-imposed limitations, outside of its identity, which is why I don't understand comments on your comment that go beyond "I don't believe in God; end of discussion."

Though I think what many people don't believe in is really just what others say/define/describe/assume God is, not necessarily what that thing, a God, would be in and of itself, independent of what anyone is saying about it, I also don't get how anyone can comment on something, heaven or hell, that is related to something they don't think exists in the first place.

[rug]

69. Good post.

Although you assume the OP is actually seeking comments instead of a game.

[patrice]

71. a game, apparently, with its own pep-rally, from the looks of this thread.

[BlueToTheBone]

9. The orignial Hell was the Goddess of Death

who cradled one back to the Earth at Death. So then the curse "Go to Hell" became something more.

[ManyShadesOf]

14. Hell

is in your mind.

[daaron]

23. Hell no.

That one's a no-brainer, kinda like creationism and the tale of Adam and Eve. It's these doctrines that offer the first hint of hope for liberal Christians and closeted atheists, because they're so incompatible with reason that they make the firmest believer doubt the literal interpretation. Once even one story of the Bible is seen as mythological, rather than historical, then it's easier to see other biblical tales in that light. The crack widens, and the warm light of reason rains down like manna from heaven (metaphorically, of course).

The invention of The Devil was perhaps the biggest mistake of the Europeanized Roman Church. Lacking even an appropriate basis in the Bible, he's so easy for a child's mind to dismiss, and the sense of relief is so palpable, that it's no wonder atheism is growing. It's like telling kids that smoking pot will make you sick and die. They smoke pot, they don't die, and they think you're a hypocrite and liar about H, too. Next thing you know - overdose.

Hell is for children, thank you, Pat.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Except of course that Hell is a fundamental belief of almost all christian denominations.

So far only one person in this forum full of persecuted christians has confessed (sort of, so far hasn't put it in words) to actually believing in Hell.

[cbayer]

25. This forum is not full of persecuted christians, let alone persecuted christians who need to

confess anything to a hostile inquisitor.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. so another 'won't say'.

This belief is fundamental to christianity and has been for 1700 years, and yet so far not one Christian here will admit to believing it.

[cbayer]

29. Another what? You have no idea what I am.

And why should anybody feel the need to *admit* anything to you?

What exactly is your point?

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Why wouldn't a believer admit that he or she believes in this?

I really am curious about this aspect of Christian beliefs. It is one thing to believe in the nice parts, but then there is this side of Christianity, do you all just reject the dark bits? Everyone goes to heaven? Or wait, do I have to ask about that belief too?

[cbayer]

35. I think you may be missing my point.

I think believers might be willing to discuss this if they thought for a moment that the inquiry was sincere and the inquirer was truly curious.

But....

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. So you can't defend your beliefs in an open forum?

I see.

[cbayer]

38. No, you can, but you don't have to.

The lack of response to you may have less to do with what people do or do not believe and more with a choice not to engage in this kind of conversation.

That's all.

[Leontius]

31. One Christian defined Hell for you and you cried 'not fair', define your concept of Hell or quit

beating your dead horse he isn't going to get up.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I'm sorry, where exactly did I cry "not fair"?

And rug won't admit to anything. I directly asked twice if he believed what was written on the page he linked to, and he has so far declined to answer.

[rug]

47. And you have already admitted you didn't understand the link,

If I'm wrong, discuss it. No one is here to "admit" things to you, especially things you have yet to demonstrate you comprehend.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. No I ignored your insult and asked again if you believed what was on the page

And you continue to refuse to answer. Do you believe what is written on the page you linked to?

[rug]

54. State the belief, if you can.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. answer right here: you believe what you linked to

check one:

yes___
no____

[rug]

82. State the belief.

There's plenty of room here:

[daaron]

30. Yeah, a fundamental belief - in a metaphorical or allegorical place.

Few people of faith try to span that breadth of cognitive dissonance. It takes too much effort - it's much simpler to accept any one of a number of rationalizations as a suitable placeholder for belief in an actual Hell. As Rug pointed out elsewhere in the thread, there's a highbrow theological theory of Hell (something about distance from Grace), and there's the metaphysical plane of being, or what-have-you, which is apparently whatever one wants it to be.

It's such a small step from disbelief in the Devil to disbelief in God, it's a wonder atheism isn't growing faster.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. The page rug linked to included the burning part.

He neglected to mention that in his mumble jumble reply.

      As we can see from the more accurate translation, the Pope was shifting our attention away from the location of the fires of hell to the real essence of hell, eternal separation, the poena damni.

      Yet, we may still wonder where hell is, for it certainly seems that since the resurrected bodies of the damned will suffer the eternal fires of hell, both the resurrected body and the fire have to be somewhere. To understand how hell can be a place, we must make some distinctions.

      The everyday word “place” is not as simple and everyday as it sounds. There is “place” as understood in common usage; there is “place” as a philosophical category; and there is “place” as related to revealed theology.

      In the common sense of the word “place,” if you were to say “Hell is not a place,” you would be denying that hell exists. Unfortunately, some thought that the Pope, in the statement quoted above, was denying that hell is a place in this sense. He was, of course, doing nothing of the sort.

[daaron]

39. Right - that's the Hell that biblical literalists might believe in -->

but it's doubtful you'll find anyone to defend that particularly medieval rationalization, here. Free Republic, maybe, but this joint? Unlikely. Here, you're more likely to find shades of Hades mixed with visions of Sheol, metaphorically or allegorically interpreted and intellectualized in a manner consistent with liberal American values of the late 20th century.

Personally, I go with Sartre's interpretation: Hell is Other People.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. not according to that page.

The quote is quite clear. The Catholic Church has insisted for 1700 years that there is a Hell and that the damned burn there for eternity. But just their resurrected bodies, mind you, for the soul it is the Soup Nazi "no god for you" thing.

But I digress. I can't get anyone who is 'a believer' to admit to either a belief or non-belief in one of the fundamental beliefs of this religion. It is this odd thing about believers, they don't appear to want to itemize exactly what it is they do or do not believe.

[rug]

57. Your difficulty is you fundamentally fail to understand the belief.

"The Catholic Church has insisted for 1700 years that there is a Hell and that the damned burn there for eternity" is a catechism oyf yours you want people to accept.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Your source.

"the resurrected bodies of the damned will suffer the eternal fires of hell".

[rug]

67. My source:

"The primacy of the pain of loss is rooted in an essential theological truth: the separation from God is not something inflicted upon us, but something freely chosen by us. If we focus on the fires of hell as most important—which given our bodily nature is certainly a temptation—we then come to believe that hell is something God does to us against our will. The startling and sobering truth is that God is only affirming the separation from Him, and from eternal happiness that we have willed. The existence of hell is, as many have said, the most radical affirmation of the freedom of the human will possible."

[rug]

49. It's not a "highbrow theological theory of Hell" if your brow operates above the level of cartoons.

It's a very simple concept to grasp, assuming someone wants to exchage ideas rather than reinforce comforting, self-justifying stereotypes.

Given the level of discussion I've seen, it's a wonder Marvel hasn't yet catered to this market.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. So, do you believe what was expressed about hell on the page you linked to?

[rug]

55. State the belief.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Simple question and no answer.

You provided a link. Do you belief what is stated on that page?

[rug]

70. Simple answer: state the belief, to the best of your understanding.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. not until you answer my question: is your linked source a statement of your beliefs on Hell?

I'm not going to address what those beliefs are until we have established that you cannot wiggle away from them.

[rug]

83. Lol. This is a sad exchange.

You can't even state the beliefs you're demanding an oath to.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. sad for who?

You pointed at a page. I asked if this is what you believe, you can't answer the question. Sad indeed.

[rug]

85. Any sapient reader.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. All you have is insults. Sad. I agree, quite sad.

So, to get back to the discussion, do you believe in Hell and if so what are your beliefs?

[cbayer]

87. Are you now or have you ever been.....

[rug]

88. I'll just leave him to fulminate.

but seeing as how there's now a chance to discuss rather than

,

I'm happy to say that excerpt captures my belief regarding hell for the most part. With the caveat that the poena damni is the core of the understanding of hell, not

.

How are you this fine day, cbayer?

[cbayer]

89. I'm great. I have guests who are in desperate need of rest and relaxation and

are just climbing out of their berth now. They slept like baby angels.

And how are you, rug?

[rug]

90. All's well. School's out and I'm hiding out at work.

[daaron]

78. OK, rug. Sorry if I called your preferred theory of Hell, "highbrow."

No doubt if it had been my intention, I could've found a more insulting term. "Hellacious?" Do you think that most Americans brows operate about cartoon level? I do not, I'm afraid, have such confidence. Most American Christians lack the capacity to formulate their beliefs in theological terms in the first place - preferring to pick their doctrines with less care than what's for dinner? or what to wear? There is a way, if taken as intended, to interpret my offhanded "highbrow" comment as a compliment. At least you have bothered to string words together, unlike the RW fundie-bots.

Would you care to try to raise the level of discussion? I'm making such an effort. Part one of my plan is to write more than three sentences in a row and utilize traditional paragraph formatting and grammar to make my meaning as plain as possible, rather than merely exchanging repartee with my online nemeses.

[white_wolf]

43. I know this was addressed to Christians, but I thought I'd share a Buddhist view.

There are some Buddhists who believe in a literal hells where people will go for a time to burn off their bad karma, but like everything in Buddhism it isn't permanent. However, the view I prefer and one I've heard expressed by most of the Buddhists I've talked to and read about, is the view that heaven and hell are states of our mind we experience on earth. For example, if someone is consumed by hatred to the point where it taints everything in their life, they are in hell.