Is the idea of hell forever a rational idea?

[Valjean]

The idea of punishment is to create a world that is just. Punishment is also meant as a deterrence.

The punished are already dead. What are we deterring them from?
Justice is not tit-for-tat. It also appears to be un-Christian:
“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. ' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:38-39.

Sociological studies ave shown that punishment is not a particularly effective crime deterrent -- apparently criminals rarely do a risk-benefit calculation before they do their crimes. Moreover, harsh punishment in prisons appears to contribute to future criminality.
Compare recidivism rates among Norwegian prisoners with those subject to the "justice" of the punitive, American system.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Justice is not tit-for-tat.

Justice is an eye for an eye, meaning that the punishment is equal to the crime.

In cultures where there is no justice system, what they have instead is revenge, where its two eyes for an eye, plus the eyes of your children.

 

[Valjean]

Justice is an eye for an eye, meaning that the punishment is equal to the crime.

In cultures where there is no justice system, what they have instead is revenge, where its two eyes for an eye, plus the eyes of your children.

Lex talionus is not justice. It's a cruel and repressive attempt at control through fear &/or intimidation. Maybe it had some tempory utility amongst a mob of rootless Hebrews wandering in a desert, but it creates misery and more crime in "civilized" countries. It's terrorism by another name.
The lust for vengeance strikes me not only as counter-productive, but as indicative of a retarded level of moral development.

In cultures where there is no justice system, you're correct. If people don't have an accepted, third-party adjudication of grievances and administration of justice, you get vendetta and perpetual feuding, sometimes even formalized into codes.
We do not live in such an anarchy.

Revenge and the people who seek it

New research offers insight into the dish best served cold.

www.apa.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In cultures where there is no justice system, you're correct. If people don't have an accepted, third-party adjudication of grievances and administration of justice, you get vendetta and perpetual feuding,

And a justice system necessarily means that the punishment is equal to the crime. People do not tolerate not receiving justice. If it is not given, they will return to a revenge system.

 

[Valjean]

And a justice system necessarily means that the punishment is equal to the crime. People do not tolerate not receiving justice. If it is not given, they will return to a revenge system.

Americans do not tolerate eye for an eye "justice." Western Europe is more practical, hence its lower crime rates.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Americans do not tolerate eye for an eye "justice." Western Europe is more practical, hence its lower crime rates.

Nonsense. Steal a piece of pizza and you pay a fine. Murder someone and you get death or life in prison. The punishments are equal to the crime. That's what eye for an eye means.

 

[freelight]

Good points.
Why couldn't an omnipotent God just turn these damned miscreants good, with a wave of His hand or some neural reprogramming spell? Seems like it would be child's play for the Lord of Creation -- and think of the energy saved in no longer keeping Hell stoked.

Personally, I have misgivings about the very concept of punishment. Reform or reprogramming can understand. Restitution I can understand. These are utilitarian, but what is the purpose of punishment? What is it intended to accomplish; what's its utility? It seems to me its primary purpose is to assuage the ire of the offended.
Is YHWH a god of vengeance?

Bingo. The concept of ETC (eternal conscious torment) in hell or hellfire....is counter productive to anything rational, let alone moral or useful. A universalist view is much more kind and compassionate, where provision is made for any punitive measures to be 'reformative' or 'corrective' in serving to 'rehabilitate' wrongdoers(sinners) into becoming better people, in 'saving' them to become closer to 'God' and fulfil their purpose of existence, to explore all the souls potential and possibilities. THIS seems what LOVE would will for its children, so in this context, 'God' is a loving nurturing 'Father-Mother-God', who wills all to be saved. The whole idea/belief in eternal hellfire is therefore criminal and insane, unbefitting of love.

There is the view of 'conditional immortality' within Christianity, which proposes that some souls may choose 'death' over 'life' after all opportunities for salvation have been provided, and that 'God' allows such souls thru free will, to 'self-destruct' if they so choose as a final 'dis-integration' of existence....these souls become so taken over by iniquity that they undergo the 'second death', from which there is no return or resurrection, they are dissolved or absorbed back into the OverSoul of Creation, (also called annihilationism) - so anything good or valuable is saved and contributed back into the Collective. This 'conditional immortality' view seems more reasonable on some levels, which allows the provision of 'free will', where ultimately souls can choose 'eternal life' or 'eternal death' at some critical point where such decisions become 'conclusive' and unalterable. - souls will have been given ample space & time to repent and make a final decision for either 'life' or 'death', so free will is respected as being near 'sovereign' as to determining individual destiny.

Then there is a more definitive Universalist View that all souls will eventually ultimately be saved by returning to 'God' willingly (apparently) after the soul sees no other real or rational route to their existence except by returning to their Source as the true core and sustaining reality of their own being (welfare), so fulfilling the divine will of love and wisdom into eternity. One problem is to consider how 'free will' would factor in here, and if its usurped in some way, since true libertarian free will could choose a path of 'self-destruction' as in the 'conditional immortality' view shared earler. There are others 'factors' involved here in the 'free will' versus 'divine will' interplay to explore. I take a more universalist view in general, but have been exploring the 'conditional immortality' perspective in the interrim, but reject the 'ECT' in hellfire view as insane. - just a few thoughts on this for now



~*~*~

 

[Valjean]

Nonsense. Steal a piece of pizza and you pay a fine. Murder someone and you get death or life in prison. The punishments are equal to the crime. That's what eye for an eye means.

Ah -- my bad. Typo. It was supposed to read Americans do tolerate (demand?) eye for an eye justice.

My point is that rehabilitation-based approaches have better success rates than strictly punitive systems. I also question the justice of punishment equaling the crime. Do two wrongs make a right?
If my car breaks down I don't sell it to a scrapyard. I fix it.

 

[viole]

(1) Temporary acts don't merit forever recompense.

When it comes to paradise, no one has a problem with it because it's an act of forever gratitude from God. It seems the problem with hell, is because it's a forever wrath and vengeance from him.

The issue seems to be then not about temporary vs forever, but an issue if forever wrath is the proper response. If forever gratitude and reward for goodness is the proper response, seems rational, forever vengeance and punishment is proper response for evil.

(2) God loves us more then we love our children.

The Quran shows that family were cut off by companions of Mohammad (s) and even fought some of their own family, when it came to truth. That is not that they didn't have affection and care for their parents, or siblings, but they detached themselves at the moment of battle between them and when their opponents showed hostility and fought the Prophet (s).

Of course, they direly wanted them to be guided, but at the end, it's not in their control.

The issue is God does want to save us before we die, and tries to intervene through intercession of his chosen from humans and Angels, and try to guide us, but at the end there is consequences for having died evil.


(3) Why can't we just change on judgment day?

This is a question. Why can't we change after? The reality is, good will and motivation is not possible in this scenario. It becomes purely a selfish act and the prayer is purely selfish with no love of God in it if you ask for God to forgive you at this point.

God set it up that death is like a pressure that motivates good deeds. That is we wish to help ourselves and others in terms of peace and guidance and relationship to God and his chosen lights on the mystic journey.

The choice is that there is forever consequences in preferring that which is lower (darkness) over that which is higher (light) and to journey downwards and running away from God's light, there is consequences.

Of course, if there was no consequences and we had forever time, it makes this trial of life with all it's complexities and simplicities meaningless.

For life to be a lesson with no consequence or reward, would make the nature of good and evil a joke play by God, it bears no reality.

On the other hand, that we have to face consequences of our actions and the faith gains light from good actions and good actions repel and purify evil actions to bring one closer to faith if have no faith, is the trial.

This also shows for similar reasons, hell is forever, as nothing can calm down God when you can't do anything of merit anymore at this point.

(4) Three things caused them to go to hell per Quran and if one was done, they would have avoided it.

(1) didn't connect to God through his established way of connecting'
(2) didn't emphasized on feeding the poor humans in need of food (Yemen ahem Yemen, etc)
(3) would vain talk with the vain talkers

If any of these are avoided or positively done (negated), if one connects to God, the other two will be avoid. If one seeks to take side of oppressed and feed the hungry, they will want also the world solution for this, and would see that lies in accepting God's guidance and kings appointed by him for justice. If one avoids vain talk, they will realize the seriousness of the two above.

Any of these, caring to feed poor, or connecting God through proper avenues, or avoiding wasting time in vain speech over and over again in one life time, they would've attained salvation.

But when all three of these are avoided...

(5) Justice is a reality

Everything no matter how little or big is assessed. None escapes God's judgment, guilt is a warning sign of a justice taking full form one day with respect to evil deeds.

I would first ask the question whether hell is a rational idea. Only when you have passed that test, you can start ask about Hell's properties. Otherwise, it would be like asking whether it is rational to say that fairies are invisible, and have an obsession for gardens.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Bingo. The concept of ETC (eternal conscious torment) in hell or hellfire....is counter productive to anything rational, let alone moral or useful. A universalist view is much more kind and compassionate, where provision is made for any punitive measures to be 'reformative' or 'corrective' in serving to 'rehabilitate' wrongdoers(sinners) into becoming better people, in 'saving' them to become closer to 'God' and fulfil their purpose of existence, to explore all the souls potential and possibilities. THIS seems what LOVE would will for its children, so in this context, 'God' is a loving nurturing 'Father-Mother-God', who wills all to be saved. The whole idea/belief in eternal hellfire is therefore criminal and insane, unbefitting of love.

There is the view of 'conditional immortality' within Christianity, which proposes that some souls may choose 'death' over 'life' after all opportunities for salvation have been provided, and that 'God' allows such souls thru free will, to 'self-destruct' if they so choose as a final 'dis-integration' of existence....these souls become so taken over by iniquity that they undergo the 'second death', from which there is no return or resurrection, they are dissolved or absorbed back into the OverSoul of Creation, (also called annihilationism) - so anything good or valuable is saved and contributed back into the Collective. This 'conditional immortality' view seems more reasonable on some levels, which allows the provision of 'free will', where ultimately souls can choose 'eternal life' or 'eternal death' at some critical point where such decisions become 'conclusive' and unalterable. - souls will have been given ample space & time to repent and make a final decision for either 'life' or 'death', so free will is respected as being near 'sovereign' as to determining individual destiny.

Then there is a more definitive Universalist View that all souls will eventually ultimately be saved by returning to 'God' willingly (apparently) after the soul sees no other real or rational route to their existence except by returning to their Source as the true core and sustaining reality of their own being (welfare), so fulfilling the divine will of love and wisdom into eternity. One problem is to consider how 'free will' would factor in here, and if its usurped in some way, since true libertarian free will could choose a path of 'self-destruction' as in the 'conditional immortality' view shared earler. There are others 'factors' involved here in the 'free will' versus 'divine will' interplay to explore. I take a more universalist view in general, but have been exploring the 'conditional immortality' perspective in the interrim, but reject the 'ECT' in hellfire view as insane. - just a few thoughts on this for now



~*~*~

If all souls are saved, it makes the trial of good and evil meaningless and makes life decisions insignificant and life as a joke. It's unjust for God to make the end result of good and evil people the same.