Should religious folks have a serious objection to hell?

That's exactly what they are: an aesthetics of living.

Enjoy the Inferno...

I consider that a last resort. Only after all attempts to construct a more rational system of ethics, that can be created somehow from some kind of rock solid ethical foundation have totally failed would I embrace that view. It seems there's too much scope in it to commit acts which could turn out to be objectively immoral one day, somehow.

I'm not trying to be dense but I don't quite get it right now. I think I almost do. At least it's easier to understand the difference if it's not a rigid distinction.

"Objective morality" is a chimera, and I find I don't agree with many of the the "morals" of those who claim otherwise. Ultimately, all is preference.

edited 19th Feb '11 1:16:47 PM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

Surely, if all morality is based on preference, fulfilling as many of those preferences as possible would be the most moral course of action?

EDIT: Also, do you have any interesting links related to that stance? I find the position interesting and obviously it's a very defensible one to take, but I've never read anything serious on the matter.

edited 19th Feb '11 1:20:37 PM by mmysqueeant

Surely, if we say that "good" is what benefits the most people, (and we take this premise for entirely selfish reasons) it is relatively easy to construct what is "good" in a given scenario from game theory?

edited 19th Feb '11 2:12:57 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

If I'm not "most people" then "good" becomes irrelevant.

Enjoy the Inferno...

The way I see it, God is the GM of this game. He makes the rules, can change it if he so wished (that he largely chooses not to does not mean he actually is incapable), and his Personal Dictionary is infallible (which he delegates from time to time). What we may consider good or evil is largely irrelevant except that it may overlap with God's (not entirely knowable) conceptions of the same. So any created good is good, at least IMO, because God said so in one way or another. It's His Personal Dictionary, sure, but he's also the one who can conceivably enforce it, as under a monotheist conception of the Divine, he's the only one with that kind of power.

As for Hell, though, though literature often describes it as one of fire and brimstone, it is unlikely to be fire and brimstone as we imagine it - it's merely the closest approximation we can come up with to the indescribable, eternal feeling of aloneness from both God and others (since concievably, there may be more than one person in Hell) we may feel if we were sent there. In such cases, literal fire and brimstone would be preferable. Hell, in my understanding, is suffering without hope, or separation from God, which amounts to the same thing.

Anyway, I'm of the belief that before any one dies (whatever religion they are), God may well give them a final chance to make a choice, and perfect knowledge of the consequences (so it's not so much God sending them to Hell, but the sinner choosing to go there). Hence I believe we can't know for sure, until the Last Judgment, who exactly did end up in Hell. For all we know, it may be almost empty, or it may be full of a lot of people. Until the end of the world, the only people who for sure know that they're in Hell will be a) the person actually there and b) God.

edited 19th Feb '11 2:58:25 PM by Cojuanco

That strikes me as being more solipsist than individualist.

Not at all; in fact I'd accuse those thinking of that what pleases them is objectively and universally "good" is the epitome of solipsism.

Enjoy the Inferno...

"If I'm not most people, then good becomes irrelevant" boils down to what is, for me, a lack of empathy with others, denying that fulfilling their preferences amounts to the same thing as it does for you. That pretty much denies other minds existing on the same level as yours.

Perhaps the opposite view is just as solipsist; I feel that it at least makes the effort to bridge the (vanishingly small) gaps between people's minds, which doesn't seem to be a solipsist thing to do to me.

edited 19th Feb '11 3:16:33 PM by mmysqueeant

Empathy ain't an inherent "good": I'm sure gang rapists and lynch mobs feel empathy amongst themselves, which is great and "good" for them, but not so for the ones on the receiving end of their predations.

Enjoy the Inferno...

I didn't say it was an inherent good. I said that it takes some large amount of solipsist sentiment to reject it.

EDIT: I also think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that empathy actually causes those events, but that's a separate issue.

edited 19th Feb '11 3:25:46 PM by mmysqueeant

Doesn't solipsism require scepticism about the nature of reality itself? I don't see how that applies here, except as a scare term on your part.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Scepticism as to the existence of other minds is what I mean when I say solipsist, and I see scepticism as to other minds being as important as one's own essentially as being the same.

I recognise that it's something of a 'scare term' and regret using it. I didn't mean to use it like that, I'm just talking through the things that come up in my mind as we talk about this topic. Sorry if I offended you.

On another level, I do think that it's a bit rich for you to bring up 'scare terms', though, given your use of the word "Slavish"! I understand your point, but that is quite a loaded term if you're going to then cry foul over solipsism.

I for one would never insist that everyone follow my own moral system. It's not fleshed out enough, for one thing, and it has holes that need work. I think that having a rational, coherent system of ethics which you abide by shouldn't impinge upon people who treat it as pure aesthetics' lives too much, though.

Some of what you say sounds like you consider it in some way fundamentally immoral (or 'wrong') to cast judgment on other people, and that you would consider it necessary for everyone to refrain from judgment in your 'perfect moral world'. Is that a fair assessment, or is there more to it than that? How does that factor into a purely aesthetic ethics?

Please don't interpret this as hostile, I am interested in your views, I'm not very good at philosophy and I'm always trying to learn more.

That's fair, I understand that. I would consider it a mark of arrogance myself, and I don't like to think I'd tell people outright what they should/shouldn't do. Rational self-interest tends to reflect morality, anyway - society, in general, works rather well, in my view.

edited 19th Feb '11 4:00:27 PM by mmysqueeant

I'll answer these point by point:

1)Scepticism of the existence of other minds=/=scepticism about the importance of other minds.

2)Doesn't "importance" depend on perception?

3)Granted, "slavish" is a value judgment on my part. Perhaps "subservient" or "subordinate" is more neutral?

4)I'm sure many moral interventionists think their moral codes "rational and coherent", too. Again, all anyone can fall back on is their own judgement.

5)I don't think "casting judgement" is "wrong" or "immoral": philosophically, I'm an amoralist. I do, however, dislike moralizing, judgementalism (the natural tendency to evaluate taken to hectoring extremes), and "thou shalts" and prefer not to be around those who exhibit such traits.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Your analogy is a bit off in that parting with your money is unpleasant, where’s altruism is not and one doesn’t have a “knife to the throat” for using the ATM a minute ago, they have it for being a raging jackass, thief, rapist, or murder and not feeling any regret over any of it.

Unless you’re talking about the fate of non-believers, which we’ve established that many tropers aren’t comfortable and don’t believe they’re going to Hell, and especially a torment eternal.

It’s not necessarily treated that way by everyone, though it is a popular Christian mentality that everyone has a sort of “Godly” or goodly nature inherent in them and some chooses to reject it. Some say that if one here’s of Christ they should associate him with this nature and accept them.

Though, this isn’t necessary the only belief of how it works for Christians.

We spent a good five+ pages establishing that this is a specific view of the afterlife not shared by what seemed to be the majority of the posters here. Though I’m curious as to what you believe repenting entails.

Sola fide still requires works, or rather “true faith” will result in good works that mirror the teaching of Christ. Otherwise, the Protestant church would be unable to reconcile sola fide with certain passages within the Bible.

The rest seems tied to the “specific view” I mentioned above.

Then you have something in common with the majority of Christian tropers, it seems.

Edit: Sending Cojuanco's post above some love because it went mostly ignored and I thought it was a good contribution to the topic.

edited 20th Feb '11 11:07:48 AM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

I have mentioned that it is this particular interpretation I have problems with. And with people who hold it.

As for the earlier point, I would add that altruism and basically treating other people decently is not the only thing that is required.

Yes, I know, and respect them for that. But I still do not quite understand how....that's difficult to formulate...how people are comfortable with being a part of organisation that does seem to hold such opinions. But that is a different question.

As for repenting - at the very least it should entail making amendments. Restitution to the victims, and accepting the punishment for one's crime. An action instead of merely change of heart. But in case of deathbed conversion it is impossible.

What if a person horribly mistreats others while being absolutely, sincerely (if maybe mistakenly) convinced that they are following god's will?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Erm...I'm not part of an organization that holds such beliefs. I'm not actually Catholic, thanks. Only by vague association (it's not my fault if they believe in Christ too) am I responsible for those people and their beliefs.

Now, @OP and @thread. Word of Dante. Word of God. Read the difference. Brilliant though it is (I love it, although I don't agree completely) Inferno is not divinely inspired.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm going to again point out that while, yes, the Bible does not explicitly state that Hell is a place of eternal torment and there's no reason to assume that this is definitely what is meant, there are passages in the Bible which can easily be read as referring to Hell as such, and many, many people have interpreted it in such a manner. "Hell = place of eternal torment" is not a strawman and was not a concept invented by Dante Alighieri. It is a reasonably common Christian belief.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I've had these lines of arguments before in other places, and what I contend is that the theology matters much less than the common culture. While the idea of Dante's image of hell is something that really has no theological backing, it's a strong part of a large cross-section of the Western culture, and as such it's something that we need to take as being part of the religion.

FWIW I actually look at the usage of "God" as a whole as being in a similar light, as in I think most people don't actually believe in a interventionist, anthropomorphic deity, which is what our culture portrays "God" as being. (Personally, I think the word, in this case, is actually used by the culture correctly and often by religious folks who argue otherwise incorrectly. If you believe that "God" is a diffuse power, or love, or everything, or whatever people say they believe in...quite frankly, to me that's not "God".

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

That's true, and I understand it's important that many people believe in Dante's concept of hell. I'll get to that in a second.

@Bobby: Ah, but it isn't specific. Nowhere is the Bible specific about hell's rules, procedures, regulation, etc. As a matter of fact, the lake of fire and other specifics crop up only in descriptions of hell after Judgement Day. The Bible has an attitude I totally agree with on this matter: It's not our business. You know what happens to you. That's it.

Sorry, I've gotta go for a little while. Be back soon.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

That’s pretty much the “core” of Christian beliefs minus the part about worshiping God/Christ. Worshipping might be necessary to go to Heaven, as there’s plenty of verses that support this notion. However non-worshipers being cast into Hell  ^*

^{Or rather, the various words that are translated to Hell}

does not enjoy great scriptural support.

“Hell” is mostly used to describe the punishment for actively sinning against God, not something to be avoided by worshiping God.

Christendom is composed of ~2 Billion adherents with different sects and teachings. There’s some pretty serious divides on issues even between the Catholics and Protestants. Furthermore, vocal minorities like the Westboro Baptist Church tend to spread the misconception that various “ideas” are actually quite common within the Church when they’re not.

Also, it’s quite common for Christians to trust their own interpretations and revelations about the Religion over any particular Church. Yet, this “personal relationship” does not deviate from standard definition of Christian that a new label need be applied.

This “deathbed conversion” would still require true belief, regret, and wish to be forgiven. So further punishment would be like punishing a Child that already understands that it did wrong and will endeavor not to do wrong again. Obviously, converting this late raises questions as to if it is really out of belief or not, but if we are to allow for musings of the metaphysical in this discussion; Final judgments would be made by one who can do no wrong.

Then they’re ignoring the core tenants of Christianity and likely sporting a blind eye or are just unaware of others that tell them not to pass judgment, i.e., they are falsely under the impression they are practicing sola fide when they in fact are not by virtue of contradicting many verses such as James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Edit: Ninja'd but I wrote this up anyhow...

It’s also a concept that’s cobbled together from many different Greek/Hebrew/etc... words and ideas that where possible not intended to “merged” together. Like the Gospel’s “Gehenna” and Revelations “Lake of Fire.” Much like the serpent, Satan, and the dragon of Revelations have been identified as one entity when the Bible itself does not really hint at a large connection between them.

So yes, it may be a “reasonably common Christian belief”, but it is not a canonically supported Christian belief.

edited 20th Feb '11 12:35:08 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

"Tenets". The word is "tenets". A "tenant" is a person who occupies a place which they rent from a landlord. I have not seen such a malapropism used so widely and consistently anywhere but on this site.

Sorry.

On topic, the Bible does make repeated reference to "eternal fire", and sinners being thrown into it, such as in Mark 9:43-48. This does not have to be interpreted as an eternal punishment, of course, but it strongly suggests it. I'd certainly consider this to be canonical support for the concept, though not definitive canonical support.

edited 20th Feb '11 12:42:33 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Why does everyone keep thinking eternal fire means eternal gridironing over it? You chuck stuff into fire to destroy it.

That's why I said it wasn't definitive canonical support. It is, nevertheless, entirely open to the popular interpretation of Hell as a place of eternal torment.

Note also that it's emphasised that burning in Hell is worse than mere death or mutilation.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff