Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

[advancedatheist]

Re: Re: Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

Life would lack meaning if we could not choose to reject God, which is how I define Hell and how many other people define Hell as well.

So, can the christians who make to heaven choose to "reject God"? Or do they lack this ability and therefore lack M&P?

 

[advancedatheist]

Quoting Tertullian:

What world's wise men besides, the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had no concern in ought that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them!

These philosophers sound like Epicureans, though Tertullian doesn't name them. No doubt he'd find it bitterly ironic that after many centuries the Epicureans' better ideas would prevail.

 

[Igopogo]

Heaven and hell are concepts that exist in human centric religions. They ignore the reality around them, (God - if you want to define it that way), and arrogantly invent a means to correct the mistakes they feel that God made in doling out our lots in life.

Putting your faith in what is written about God in holy texts means putting your faith entirely in man. Clearly you have to believe the exact will of God is translated perfectly through the writing, translating, editting, publishing and survival of these texts, all completely in the domain of man. To trump the study of reality with wishful thinking of holy texts is to give yourself over to a human worshipping cult.

The irony is that science in it's purest form is the study of the works of God (when defined as the universe as we find it = God), that tries to remove the mistakes of man's limitations. Text based religious groups are the ones who have turned their backs on God and have put all their faith entirely in mankind.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

Of course YOU don't - however your religion needs a 'hell' for the anguish of others.

I don't think religions have needs! They aren't people. People have needs.

I do think that there needs to be a place for anguish! And that place wouldn't be heaven. People have free will, and they can choose anguish if they want to. Why take that choice away?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Could you define free will for us? We've been around this free will thing many times, but have yet to see a definition. The term appears to be important as far as heaven and hell are concerned.

~~ Paul

I can dig pretty much what this link says:
http://www.christiantreasury.org/HumanWill/HumanWill_Anselm_Definition.htm

But simply put, free will is the ability for a human being to make choices. Adding theology/sin/god to the mix, that choice can be directed toward God, or away from God. Or neither. Like, whether to have the red M&M or the blue one.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Does hell give life meaning and purpose?

So, can the christians who make to heaven choose to "reject God"? Or do they lack this ability and therefore lack M&P?

I think that anyone at any time can choose to reject God, be you human or angel.

As for heaven...I think it's a state of being. Christianity, or at least Catholcism, actually doesn't have a whole lot of specifics about it. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, Christians believe that we were created to be heaven, and heaven for us could actually be a life (in harmony with God i.e. Adam & Eve) on a recreated Earth.

In my opinion, and I'm a believing Christian, this heaven/hell thing is not as straightforward as it's being talked about. It isn't you go to the good place, or you go to the bad place. I can hardly defend that way of thinking when it's not my way of thinking.

I do join in with everyone who finds fault with people who say that 99% of all souls burn in hell. Things like that.

There isn't a SINGULAR way of thinking about heaven/hell in Christianity. Oh, certainly some Christians will say there is, and I'd guess they'd consider self-proclaimed Christians who have alternative views to not actually be Christians. Whatever. It's an open question, but I insist that free will is always inviolable. As for the details about heaven/hell, I hardly have a need to obsess over them, I'm still trying to get this life sorted. It's interesting stuff to think about, and I use my own ideas about the nature of God to help we get through it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Heaven and hell are concepts that exist in human centric religions. They ignore the reality around them, (God - if you want to define it that way), and arrogantly invent a means to correct the mistakes they feel that God made in doling out our lots in life.

I'm not sure how it ignores the reality around them. I think we all are cognizant about what generally happens on Earth, regardless of our views on heaven/hell.

I think that all organized groups of people are...human centric. That's kind of the point.

No, Christians do not believe that heaven/hell are the means for God to correct God's mistakes. Since you believe that, of course you're not a Christian. If I believed that, I wouldn't be a Christian either. When this is cleared up to you (as I believe it eventually will be), I think you'll be allowed to see it for what it really is, and then you can make a more informed choice about the matter at that time.

Putting your faith in what is written about God in holy texts means putting your faith entirely in man.

That's like saying that putting your faith in what is written about science in a science book is putting your faith entirely in man. It's not that simple. Of course we're all in this together. God understood that, and God too became a man. So yes, that's part of it.

Clearly you have to believe the exact will of God is translated perfectly through the writing, translating, editting, publishing and survival of these texts, all completely in the domain of man.

No you don't. I don't, and I'm a believer. Can you explain that? That goes against your dogmatic precept.

To trump the study of reality with wishful thinking of holy texts is to give yourself over to a human worshipping cult.

But that's because you don't believe God exists, so of course Christians can't worship God. We say we do worship God, we say it directly and clearly, and if God exists, I'll stick with his opinion on the matter. If he doesn't exist, it doesn't matter.

The irony is that science in it's purest form is the study of the works of God (when defined as the universe as we find it = God), that tries to remove the mistakes of man's limitations. Text based religious groups are the ones who have turned their backs on God and have put all their faith entirely in mankind.

We have faith that God uses man to transmit faith from generation to generation. God can choose to act in whatever way he wants. Jesus didn't write the Bible, after all. He left that to others. We're all in this together, that's what Christians believe.

-Elliot

 

[jjramsey]

Heaven and hell are concepts that exist in human centric religions. They ignore the reality around them, (God - if you want to define it that way), and arrogantly invent a means to correct the mistakes they feel that God made in doling out our lots in life.

This is half-wrong and a bit incoherent. Heaven and Hell are certainly doctrines that deal with the fact that those who do wrong often don't get their comeuppance in their lifetimes. Where you go wrong here is in assuming that those who believe in Heaven and Hell see the prosperity of cheaters as the result of "mistakes they feel that God made in doling out our lots in life." The incoherency is the idea that the concepts of Heaven and Hell imply ignorance of the reality that good things happen to bad people and vice versa, when this is the very reality that the doctrines of Heaven and Hell address.

Clearly you have to believe the exact will of God is translated perfectly through the writing, translating, editting, publishing and survival of these texts

You forgot to say something about the King James Version. Seriously, even most inerrantists believe that only the original versions of the Bible documents (which are now lost) are infallible, while copies and translations may have errors. (See here.) Many Christians go even further, believing that the Bible has errors but is sufficiently accurate for doctrinal basics and moral instruction. (See here.) Quite simply, you are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

In addition, Life is sweet if you know your enemies are going to suffer in anguish forever.

Absolutely. There is something comforting in the fact that there is an ultimate judgment and that lying, obfuscation and the ability to afford Johnny Cochran cannot circumvent. Hitler, OJ, Robert Blake and the guy who stole my mag wheels from my Camaro are all going to burn in hell. Especially the guy who stole my mag wheels. Prick.

 

[jan]

And I guess they're going to be kind of disappointed if it turns out, as has been suggested, that what's on offer is actually a plate of dried grapes...

I think you are confusing Islam and Protestantism here. See, a Muslim doesn't have to rely on the Holy Book as the only source of wisdom: there is the tradition, there are holy men. Tradition obviously tells us that Haura = Virgin Babe. Otherwise, all those suicide bombers would be wrong, wouldn't they? I am aware that some historians and philologists claim that this word means grape, but their <span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:80%;">η</span>oppinion<span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:80%;">η</span> is completely irrelevant here<span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:80%;">η</span>, since they are not part of said tradition<span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:80%;">η</span>.

But mine is. I have no desire to see anyone burn in Hell. If some people are burning in hell, or do burn in hell, it's because they rejected God of their own free will. I think the burning in hell bit would be their own manifestation of their eternal reality, and that manifestation is variable.

I don't think that 99.99% of people will burn in hell.

I think peoples' lives can be meaningful for a litany of different reasons, and wondering about that is kind of silly. How can a person's life be meaningful given A, B, and C? It just seems like a silly question to ask, or a silly point to make. People find meaning in the most outrageous things, the most mundane things, the most random things, etc.

See, meaning is a personal choice. Right? It's not some objective thing that can be stated scientifically.

Regardless whether you think the metaphysical claims of Christianity to be true or not, either ways it may be an interesting question what the psychological motivation of believers is. You may argue that Christians belief christian beliefs because they are true, so the question of motivation may be ignored. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that the prospect to see his enemies burn in hell is part of Tertullian's motivation. He, at least, enjoys to imagine his proponents in hell, and freely admits it.

If you say that you don't want to see anybody in hell, all I can say is that I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the difference between you and Tertullian is that your theology is more advanced than his, that his is a bit outdated. But I suspect it is more a question of temper, and you are probably just a nicer guy than Tertullian.

I know Christians who belief that hell doesn't exist, or that it is at least only a temporal state, and that everybody will be saved, given enough time. That a hell lot more sympathetic than what Tertullian writes (although I doubt that it goes very well with the bible). It should have been obvious that I didn't really claimed that you need hell for life to be meaningful, since I believe in neither heaven nor hell. But if meaning really is, as you claim, a personal choice, at least some have chosen to use the prospect of their enemies burning in hell as something to add meaning to their lifes.

It's bizarre that atheists/agnostics are hung up on meaning, but whatever.

Maybe you just confused this. Some atheists/agnostics are simply annoyed by some Christians (not necessarily all) who claim that you need to believe in an afterlife, otherwise life would be meaningless. I guess advancedatheist was just attacking such a notion with the opening post.

Right or wrong, wanting to see one's tormentors and others who get away with wrongdoing get their comeuppance is understandable.

I agree that it is understandable. But I nevertheless think better of people who resist that temptation.

These philosophers sound like Epicureans, though Tertullian doesn't name them. No doubt he'd find it bitterly ironic that after many centuries the Epicureans' better ideas would prevail.

Perhaps he would be more surprised to learn that so many people call themselves "Christians", without taking it too seriously.



Edited to add: those things indicated with <span style="vertical-align:super;font-size:80%;">η</span>, for clarification.

 

[advancedatheist]

the guy who stole my mag wheels from my Camaro are all going to burn in hell. Especially the guy who stole my mag wheels. Prick.

If the material world ultimately doesn't have any value, why do theists put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes?

 

[jjramsey]

If the material world ultimately doesn't have any value, why do theists put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes?

Two problems:

• Theists do not necessarily believe that the material world ultimately doesn't have any value.
  
• Theists do not necessarily put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes. Right now, the hot-button issues are abortion and homosexuality, which don't have much if anything to do with property. If anything, theists tend to focus on issues relating to sex rather than property.

 

[JR "BOB" Dobbs]

I've often found this argument a stick in hardcore theists eyes - a moral atheist is theoretically a better person than a moral theist, because the moral theist is acting this way because they are under threat of divine punishment while the moral atheist is inherently moral (as in behaving morally without the presence of consequences). The answer I usually get is "you satan-loving heathen!", but you get the point. Part of the definition of being a Christian is that they are flawed because of the mistake of Adam and Eve (and only through Christ may you atone for these sins blah blah). When an atheist is moral, it defies the Christian paradigm of humans being flawed.

In direct answer to your question, I certainly don't think so, being an atheist myself. It's hard to say what a Christian answer might be, as their answers are as varied as their sects though. I don't think all of them are that hardcore though.

 

[jan]

I've often found this argument a stick in hardcore theists eyes - a moral atheist is theoretically a better person than a moral theist, because the moral theist is acting this way because they are under threat of divine punishment while the moral atheist is inherently moral (as in behaving morally without the presence of consequences).

Not necessarily. Attar (a Muslim) and Eckhart (a Christ) have a strong position that it is no merit to act "morally" to get some reward or avoid punishment — that's treating God like a cow, says Eckhart (you feed a cow to get milk; you avoid sin and do good deeds to manipulate God to make him make you go to heaven). You should act like you should act, according to them, because you fell in love with God.

Not necessarily mainstream, I admit...

 

[advancedatheist]

Two problems:

• Theists do not necessarily believe that the material world ultimately doesn't have any value.

A nontrivial number of them have jumped on the "end times" bandwagon with their foolish delusion about getting "raptured" before Armageddon. It sounds to me as if they've deeply discounted the future value of the material world.

• [*]Theists do not necessarily put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes. Right now, the hot-button issues are abortion and homosexuality, which don't have much if anything to do with property. If anything, theists tend to focus on issues relating to sex rather than property.
  

But how can the things people do with their material organs get their "spirits" in trouble?

 

[advancedatheist]

You should act like you should act, according to them, because you fell in love with God.

It sounds as if "ethical" behavior telegraphs reproductive fitness signals to your deity.

 

[Igopogo]

No, Christians do not believe that heaven/hell are the means for God to correct God's mistakes.

(snip)

That's like saying that putting your faith in what is written about science in a science book is putting your faith entirely in man. It's not that simple.
-Elliot

I didn’t say that “Christians believe” that heaven/hell are the means for God to correct God's mistakes, just that that’s the way it really is as I see it.

How do we know about the concepts of heaven & hell, and the criteria for who goes where? Not through physical evidence (unless you can show us some), but through concepts written in religious texts. Believing what is written about these concepts requires faith that the texts are correct. And believing that these texts are correct requires faith in the infallibility (a god-like quality) of the chain of people who bring you these texts.

If these concepts written fly in the face of empirical evidence and are easily explained by the desires and politics within human nature, then what can they reveal about the nature of reality? From my point of view – nothing, except what I already perceive - that we humans have a human-centric view of reality.

Your answer to my remark about faith in the bible is putting faith in man with “That's like saying that putting your faith in what is written about science in a science book is putting your faith entirely in man.” - If you are trusting what is written in the face of what can be tested true or false, then yes, it’s the same thing. This would be religion, not science.

What science really is, is a process by which we attempt to correct past ideas with more accurate explanations of reality. No one has a monopoly on the truth, there are no sacred cows. Ideas stand or fall on their own merits.
So this is why I conclude:

Believing in religious texts = Human worship
Science = An attempt to understand the true nature of God (reality)

So, who's the atheist?

 

[RandFan]

If the material world ultimately doesn't have any value, why do theists put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes?

Good question. I'm afraid there is no simple answer and I don't think it is necessarily true that they do put so much emphasis on punishing property crimes.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

--Christ

It's been a long time since I have heard a discourse on the subject of the Sermon on the Mount but I think the idea is that just because Christians are forgiving is not a reason that justice should not be served. The sermon ostensibly places civil law outside of the individual and places it in the hands of the society. So while the material object is not paramount justice is. Furthermore, after all is said and done one must be willing to forgive and forget and not allow material objects to create enmity. My wheels not withstanding I happen to agree with this principle (the story about the wheels was tongue in cheek btw).

ETA, in case I didn't make it clear I'm not a theist.

 

[Igopogo]

This is half-wrong and a bit incoherent. Heaven and Hell are certainly doctrines that deal with the fact that those who do wrong often don't get their comeuppance in their lifetimes. Where you go wrong here is in assuming that those who believe in Heaven and Hell see the prosperity of cheaters as the result of "mistakes they feel that God made in doling out our lots in life." The incoherency is the idea that the concepts of Heaven and Hell imply ignorance of the reality that good things happen to bad people and vice versa, when this is the very reality that the doctrines of Heaven and Hell address.

Huh? Not too sure what you’re saying here, but your last sentence makes it sounds like we’re in agreement.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is your point - that people believe in heaven and hell because when good things happen to bad people and vice versa, it’s only half the story. We find out the actual reality of the “big picture” in the afterlife. If so, this is my point too.

That is - believing in heaven/hell is wishful thinking improving what we don’t like about our direct experiences of reality.

 

[jan]

It sounds as if "ethical" behavior telegraphs reproductive fitness signals to your deity.

If I were you, I wouldn't believe everything jan says at face value, but read Attar or Eckhart instead. Maybe it's just my sloppy abstract that sounds that way.