|
Post by mice34 on Apr 25, 2009 20:56:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 26, 2009 3:13:25 GMT -5
Yes, but if you have no physical body, the point is moot
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 26, 2009 7:17:06 GMT -5
I'm asking honestly, are there other reasons that entities hurt another? Deterance, to a third party. Remember, every time you masturbate god kills a kitten.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 26, 2009 8:46:48 GMT -5
I'm asking honestly, are there other reasons that entities hurt another? Deterance, to a third party. Remember, every time you masturbate god kills a kitten. God, I can't count the number of kittens I've killed!
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Apr 26, 2009 10:41:41 GMT -5
Pain is used primarily biologically (haha, I got four words in before bringing it back to science) to condition something to be better in some way. People hurt others intentionally because they're sadists, or they're trying to improve the individual (spanking a child, etc), or because they need compliance for something (torture). Can anyone else think of any other reasons? Because as it stands, the idea of an inescapable permanent hell implies that compliance isn't the issue (even if one complies, it's inescapable), and improvement isn't the issue (it's permanent, if one got better, it would still continue) leaving me with sadism as the only reason it would even exist. I'm asking honestly, are there other reasons that entities hurt another? Well, it can happen through ignorance (and it's clearly known god isn't ignorant of hell as there's that whole Jesus thing), and vengeance, which I suppose could be seen as a form of sadism. I would have included it as a form of defence but that falls under compliance. So, yeah, the only reason that it could actually fall under is sadism. The question assumes that Hell will be a physical punishment. Some theologies, as well as a few interpretations of the Bible, hold that Hell will be mental in nature, in the sense that a person will have to spend eternity realizing just how badly they fouled up and how their foul-ups have cost them. Physical pain goes away after a while, but mental pain is forever. So you'd say that complete ignorance is a foul-up that cost them, even though it was nothing they had any sort of control over in any way, shape, or form? Remember, by the bible you have to accept Jesus to be saved, which means you must know of him, and all those who never hear and are in complete ignorance are damned to hell. Oh, and before you try saying then that it's only those that reject Jesus that go to hell, so the ignorant are saved, you admit then that missionaries are damning people to hell because they inform them, and thus provide the chance for them to go to hell, instead of trying to make sure they remain ignorant and thus guaranteed salvation.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 26, 2009 13:57:28 GMT -5
Heck, even if we assume that the pain in Hell is entirely mental, there comes a point where ANYONE simply becomes numb. Even if it took someone thousands of years to become jaded enough not to feel their own emotional anguish, it WOULD eventually happen. The human mind strives to survive however it can. And even if the methods are sometimes detrimental (such as shutting down ALL emotion to kill overwhelming negative ones) it almost always finds a way. Well lets take an example of the perfect monk. He enters a monastery at the age of 6, spends his entire life in meditation and helping those less fortunate than himself. Meditates day and night on compassion. Yet he ends up in hell because he was born in a Buddhist country? So what the hell is his emotional anguish going to be? I'm sorry I didn't listen to those Christian kooks that came to our door? Yet Dhalmer gets into heaven because he reconverted when he was in prison.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 26, 2009 14:28:55 GMT -5
I'm asking honestly, are there other reasons that entities hurt another? Deterance, to a third party. Remember, every time you masturbate god kills a kitten. Deterrence to a third party. Good point, though what that basically amounts to is either proxy torture or using the fear of torture (i.e., mental torture). You're just trying to get compliance from others using the same methods. Pain is used primarily biologically (haha, I got four words in before bringing it back to science) to condition something to be better in some way. People hurt others intentionally because they're sadists, or they're trying to improve the individual (spanking a child, etc), or because they need compliance for something (torture). Can anyone else think of any other reasons? Because as it stands, the idea of an inescapable permanent hell implies that compliance isn't the issue (even if one complies, it's inescapable), and improvement isn't the issue (it's permanent, if one got better, it would still continue) leaving me with sadism as the only reason it would even exist. I'm asking honestly, are there other reasons that entities hurt another? Well, it can happen through ignorance (and it's clearly known god isn't ignorant of hell as there's that whole Jesus thing), and vengeance, which I suppose could be seen as a form of sadism. I would have included it as a form of defence but that falls under compliance. So, yeah, the only reason that it could actually fall under is sadism. I said purposely so that I could ignore harm done through ignorance. Besides, ignorance doesn't really apply to the same entity omnipotence does... And I would totally classify vengeance as sadism. You're hurting someone because they hurt you and hurting them makes you feel good, that's the definition of sadism. Defense is interesting, though again, I don't think it applies to an omnipotent being. It does indeed fal under compliance, but I was thinking compliance more in terms of "getting something you want" as opposed to "not getting something you don't want", so I would need to broaden the definition.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Apr 26, 2009 15:02:51 GMT -5
The question assumes that Hell will be a physical punishment. Some theologies, as well as a few interpretations of the Bible, hold that Hell will be mental in nature, in the sense that a person will have to spend eternity realizing just how badly they fouled up and how their foul-ups have cost them. Physical pain goes away after a while, but mental pain is forever. I always thought jean-paul sartre's "no exit" made a lot more sense. The idea of hell being other people and not neccessarily a lake of fire- kind of shows that if there is a god he is creative
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on Apr 26, 2009 15:54:31 GMT -5
Yes, but if you have no physical body, the point is moot Without a physical body you don't exist, is what I'm saying. What we think of as our "minds" are inextricably tied to the body, they aren't separate.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 26, 2009 16:06:16 GMT -5
If you feel pain of any sort after you die you are not doing the death thing properly.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Apr 26, 2009 16:30:20 GMT -5
While most of the comments assume the catholic/protestant interpretation of hell, I think the orthodox view should also be considered. Remember also that orthodox churches claim that catholicism is schismatic andone of the big issues is exactly the concept of hell. And as usual orthodoxy claims it is the one true cristianity.
My understanding is that in orthodoxy there is no physical hell. All souls come to (christian) God after death and heaven is the faithful communion with Him, while hell is being in denial and rejection. I am not sure if a soul can change after death according to orthodoxy. If it can't then the suffering is eternal and it seems like there wouldn't be any numbing possible. If a soul can change then things are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Apr 26, 2009 16:34:48 GMT -5
Another comment here. It seems to me that orthodoxy is much more consistent on the whole devil/satan potency. In it God is omnipotent and there is no way that Satan will claim any souls. Satan can only lure souls to reject God and only because God allows free will. I should look into how orthodoxy interprets Revelation though...
|
|
POSW
Full Member
Still metal, no longer Jewish
Posts: 217
|
Post by POSW on Apr 26, 2009 17:28:11 GMT -5
Thing is, if God is truly all-powerful (which is a paradox in itself), he can create a form of physical pain that people can never get accustomed to.
Of course, that would make God an asshole, but fundies generally believe that God is an asshole to anyone who doesn't believe what they do.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 26, 2009 17:56:00 GMT -5
Heck, even if we assume that the pain in Hell is entirely mental, there comes a point where ANYONE simply becomes numb. Even if it took someone thousands of years to become jaded enough not to feel their own emotional anguish, it WOULD eventually happen. The human mind strives to survive however it can. And even if the methods are sometimes detrimental (such as shutting down ALL emotion to kill overwhelming negative ones) it almost always finds a way. Well lets take an example of the perfect monk. He enters a monastery at the age of 6, spends his entire life in meditation and helping those less fortunate than himself. Meditates day and night on compassion. Yet he ends up in hell because he was born in a Buddhist country? So what the hell is his emotional anguish going to be? I'm sorry I didn't listen to those Christian kooks that came to our door? Yet Dhalmer gets into heaven because he reconverted when he was in prison. Again, you're assuming that all Christian denominations have exactly the same theology; this is not the case. I've noted that those denominations who hold to Hell being mental in nature also tend to hold that a person's final judgment is based as much on their actions in life as anything else. In this case, the monk would get to go in as he'd have spent the bulk of his life doing good by his belief system; Dahmer, on the other hand, would still have some explaining to do.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 26, 2009 18:17:47 GMT -5
If you feel pain of any sort after you die you are not doing the death thing properly. God-damn, praise the lord, well said, OV!
|
|