Talk:Problem of Hell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Solution - Purgatory?

The problem of hell simplies vanishes when you consider hell to be a "purifier" of sin. Once the individual has suffered hell for a time determined by God based on their sins during their life, they have then atoned and are released from purgatory. Benjy613 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Call for an Expert

I tagged this article because I found the article to be amateurish. Needs better theological treatment. For one thing, Marilyn McCord Adams is a controversial voice in the debate. (An informed acquaintance of mine was less diplomatic, labeling her "a loon.") She is given too much prominence with inadequate balance from mainstream theologians. <>< tbc 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I named Adams not because I wanted to appeal to her authority, but simply because Wikipedia policies require one to cite the arguments that you discuss, otherwise it looks like it's just your own ideas. Her arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of what others think of her.

And I take issue with the idea that we need "theology" here. This is a philosophy of religion topic. Evercat 13:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article might even warrent being removed, or drastically altered. It (and this page) seem to have turned into a forum for theological discussion, and a chance for people to state what they believe/think plausible. Wikipedia is not meant to be(unless Im wholly mistaken) a forum for the discussion of "has religion X got it wrong?.."

An article posing 'a potential problem' may well be ok, with links to arguments from different sides, but an article that tries to argue it out, and end by asserting one 'logical conclusion' is surely not something that Wikipedia can endorse (without the website having theological opinions..)

Even if we can get experts, then the article will become a place for them to preach what they think is the solution.. if we get one from either side of the line (i.e one saying this is a problem, we shouldnt believe.. and one saying its not.. ) then the article will become a fighting zone, as each continues to add more and more... --TM-77 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized

Would a loving God throw is chidren into an eternal hell? Or would he give a chance to those who had lived a good life? That makes more sense, hell may exsist but it is not for those who may have doubted their faith but still lived good lives. Even eternal hell for the evil does not seem right as well.

The "problem" of Hell is basically a monotheistic concern. Polytheists generally accept the idea of good and evil deities. Rickyrab 21:08, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably right. Evercat 21:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] But Hell is a choice!

The author makes a claim that if given the choice, and full knowledge of what hell is, that a rational human will always choose heaven. I submit that we are not ration humans. The Bible states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Since we are sinners, we are incapable of making a rational choice of heaven or hell. In other words, we do not know of anything else besides hell (there is but one choice on the ballet, not 2).

The problem of knowing who deserves hell and who deserves heaven has to do with original sin. OS ruined our abililty to understand a good God, and so all that is left is an understanding of sin.

Now it would be a real bummer if we left it at that. However, Jesus Christ came into the world to suffer and die in our place so that he would experience hell and we would not have to. To fullfill this, all we need to do is confess with our mouth and belive in our heart that Jesus did this for us. And instantly we are brought to life and we can now see the other path to heaven. And not just to one day live with God in a happy place, but the here and now. The Bible says that God comes and lives in us, we become one with him when we believe, therefore he cannot reject himself, and thus welcomes us into his kingdom when we die on Earth (avoiding eternal seperation in Hell).

Which really screws over everyone who died between the Fall and Jesus's death on the cross. So either God is really mean, or he just didn't like people until they nailed his son to a giant "T", or he's terrible at planning this sort of thing. So, still a problem. grendel|khan 21:16, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

In reponse to above Jesus did a whirlwind trip of hell after his death and before his rebirth converting as he went. So those who had not sinned were set free and allowed to enter heaven. Given a few thousand years religions tend to find away round almost every problem.

In additional responce to above, there are non-Jews in the OT who are considered ritous before God simply because of their faith (before any Jewish contact), and thus were able to goto heaven thanks to Jesus. If anyone really wants I can rumouge around untill I find the story (around deut I think.. or maybe Numbers...).
Also for someone/something as all powerful as God what difference does time make? surely he can fogive people in full knowledge that one day (by his plan) their punishment will be transferred to another...
--TM-77 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A UNIVERSALIST RESPONSE

Jesus Says" An when I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself" This implies that Christ's Sacrifice was enough to save all men.

Further St. Paul says " Just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ Shall all me made alive". The ALL in the above verses needs special attention. The traditional version of hell presents Christ as a failure who is not able to save all of Creation. I would also like to add that the Early Christians and the apostles never believed in the doctrine of hell and eternal torment. The concept of Hell is not found in the original text of the New Testament in Greek. The apostles speak of " the restitution of all things"

For more information visit

http://christian-universalism.com/links.html

or

www.tentmaker.org

[edit] Origin of Original Sin

Original Sin is a pureply Christian concept. In Judaism, Christianity's foundation, original sin does not exist. Therefore, the purpose Jesus serves in saving us from original sin is purely unnecessary.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this article but still... Orginal Sin is not a 'universal Christian truth' i.e. not everyone believes it.. it has many versions, but to the best of my knowledge, it is never thought to be the (only) reason why Jesus died for our sins. His death is for all sins past & present.
But anyway, that doesn't make any difference about Hell's existance...
--TM-77 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I'm going to move this article to Problem of Hell in accordance with the general MOS proscription against the beginning titles. --Gareth Hughes 22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can't do that, because it already exists. So:
  • Isn't it the house style not to use article titles beginning with the definite article unless it is in some way intrinsic to it? Move to Problem of Hell. --Gareth Hughes 22:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

If this page gets moved, then The problem of evil should also be moved to Problem of evil. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Done this one too. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Child with shotgun

On the "child with shotgun" bit:

That view, however, presupposes that we as the "child" are responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven, we're just not responsible enough to choose to go to Hell;

This argument is weird. Adams is simply saying that we're too flawed to be given a choice with such potentially negative consequences. I don't understand what you mean about being "responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven". Please elaborate.

and/or that we don't have enough knowledge right now to choose between Heaven and Hell (an issue that cannot be fully addressed by the argument).

This is mentioned in the passage below.

Alternatively stated, it presupposes that omniscient knowledge is required to make the "right" choice

How does it presuppose any such thing?

or that mortality is a test of our knowledge as opposed to which side of our nature we choose to develop under the circumstances of mortal life.

Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument. Evercat 22:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thanks for explaining in depth why you reverted my changes.

I understand what you mean about making no presupposition about going to Heaven, just that any choice involving eternal destinies could not reasonably be given to ignorant creatures such as ourselves.

However, I disagree with your last point --

Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument.

The reason I disagree is clear from the definition of "ignorant" and its relation to "knowledge". My point was that Adams' argument is only valid if it indeed would be unjust to judge us by decisions we make based on our knowledge, but it is entirely possible that the "test" of mortality may not be based upon knowledge at all, it may be based upon what we choose to become as a result of how we respond to tests of mortality.

Also implicit in Adams' argument is that we are somehow unprepared for the test by our ignorance. However if God is just, then we must be prepared, otherwise God would of necessity be unjust by giving us an unjust test. So if you believe God exists, and you believe in the justice of God, you cannot also believe with logical consistency that we are completely unprepared.

Adams argues that our ignorance renders us incapable of eschewing incorrect choices and the corresponding consequences of eternal punishment.

No, she doesn't. She makes the argument that Hell is unfair even if everyone knows what is required. In another analogy, she writes:

Suppose the powers that be threaten a nuclear holocaust if I do not always put my pencil down no more than an inch from the paper on which I am writing ... Although in some sense I can comply, I am also in some sense bound to slip up sooner or later.

It's clear that knowledge is not the problem. The problem is that it is unreasonable to give such flawed creatures as ourselves any way to send ourselves to Hell forever, whether by conscious choice or merely through the way one lives one's life.

Is it possible that what you really object to is the line above that bit, that reads "so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be" and you're suggesting that there's an alternate way in which the "choice" could be made? Adams' argument clearly works however the choice is made, but I see that this bit could be problematic. Evercat 11:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Separate from the suggestion that one chooses one's eternal fate in life, many fathers of the church believed that upon death a soul will fully understand the good and evil of all its acts during life, and (if sinful) will in fact go to Hell voluntarily because it will deem itself unworthy for Heaven.

A problem with this argument is that it implies that some people are superior to others in God's view and deserve better treatment, which is contradictory with an image of an all-loving God. It also seems to suggest that a possible solution would be to eliminate any possible chance for people to hear about "God's plan" and salvation.

I am removing the 2nd paragraph here because it is a complete non-sequiteur, as far as I can see. Evercat 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Three paragraphs above in this discussion the claim is made "many fathers of the church believed......," please give citations for this claim as many would be interested to see the evidence.67.65.59.66 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hell in Islam

In Islam (as far I know) Humans in Hell can work off their debt to God and can then gain entry to Heaven. This should gain a mention in the above article if it can be properly sourced, as Muslims believe in Hell as much as Jews and Christians. -- 203.11.225.5

Interesting, sounds similar to the second chance doctrine. Can you find a Koran verse? Evercat 09:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I did a little bit of research on google and I found just the opposite:
  • Verily those who reject faith and die rejecting - on them is Allaah's Curse and the Curse of the Angels and of all mankind. They will abide therein: their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their lot (2:161-162)
  • Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their Penalty will be one that endures (5:37)
  • The unbelievers shall endure forever the torment of Hell. The punishment will never be lightened, and they shall be speechless with despair (43:74)
(Info found here and here) --Nova77 20:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] scientific problems of hell

using quotations taken from the bible, sciuentists have proved that heaven is in fact hotter than hell. the bible says that there are lakes of molten brimstone (sulphur) in hell, meaning that the temperature cannot be more than 444°C, otherwise the lakes would boil off. another seperate quote states that hevean shines witht eh light of 7 suns, or something like that, and that would mean (using the physics of light n stuff) that heaven should be averaging 550°C

this to me seems rather odd. but is it relivent? comments please, mastodon 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, the statements by no means prove any temperature of either heaven or hell. I would assume that if god is all powerful, he'd have no problem getting around our conventional science. He could have (for lack of a better description) rediculously advanced technology that sends our "ancient" ways of thinking out the window.
I don't believe that any of this is relevant to the problem of hell, though. Flea110 04:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Trivially, if you want to have something molten past the temperature that it boils away, you just have to increase the pressure, that figure of 444°C is just at our 'normal' pressure...
Secondly the quote only mentions the brightness, and in context is meant as a good thing, and nothing about heat.
But finally, this is really irrelevant, as it does not change the 'justice' which seems to be the main theme of the article...
--TM-77 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncategorized

Lets compare good and evil with light and darkness. First we ask the question what is darkness? Well as most people know darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. We should think of the concept of Heaven and Hell in a similar manner, where Hell is the absence of the Light of God. Now we are all in this life on our own personal journeys, our objective the Light of the Sun of God (In whatever form we may perceive this Light as). But, unfortunately, there are many who, for some reason and perhaps because of unfortunate circumstances in their life, have learned to hate the Light. These people are those who have let their ignorance, self-love, lust for power etc. blind them to this Light and have therefore condemmed themselves to "Hell". So to me the question of going to Heaven or Hell is a matter of free will, of which we excercise every day to the smallest detail of our lives. And one important thing to remember is it never says in any of the scriptures that you have to be dead to be in hell.

Your "and perhaps because of unfortunate circumstances in their life" was pretty much the key statement, there; you might want to read up on determinism for an argument on why your position in tenuous.

[edit] Eternal Torture as an Impossibility?

I must admit that I don't understand how hell can be "eternal torture." Physical pain, I'd expect, would start losing its bite after a few millenia or so; enough constant mental/psychological anguish would probably result in madness; thus everyone would simply be so numb or so insane after long enough that hell stops affecting them. And, since hell is "eternal," both eventualities are bound to happen. Of course, you could say that God interferes and deliberately keeps all the senses and the mind fresh, but there's a fine line between "hard but just" and "just plain malicious;" for God to take a personal interest in torture is something that I simply don't think any pious person can truly believe.

It does seem to be self-contradictory of the nature of god. Also known as the problem of hell. Flea110 04:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missunderstanding of Concept

I believe this comes from the various changes made to the concept of hell.

Most of what we understand to be "Hell" is from a handfull of random theologans and philosophers over the past few millenia. All the older references to the afterlife are much clearer. Jack Cain 05:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The ancient greeks were particually harsh in their fables. I still remember one that stuck with me, the boy that ate some food that belonged to the gods, so they punished him by making it so that the more he ate the hungrier he got. Plus, the echo lady. mastodon 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Devil

In church you are led to believe that Satan's main purpose is to pull souls away from God and make them believe that they will be happy in hell. That is why someone would choose to go there instead of heaven, simple as that... 207.177.118.2 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But why would an enemy of God (i.e. "The Devil") want to punish those who transgress against God? Would he not instead welcome and reward them?

As a more secular example: If you were to blow up an American building then go to a terrorist group, would you expect them to punish you or to praise you for destroying that building? It makes no sense for a terrorist organization to punish you for furthering their goals, as well as it makes no sense for the Devil to punish one in the same way. From this, we can surmise the following:

1. If we assume the existance of God, then he must be running Hell.

Ergo, God is malicious and not omnibenevolent.

2. If we assume the existance of God, but not that he runs Hell then he must be controlling the Devil, leading to the aformentioned result.

3. Thus, we have to assume that "God" has no contact with Hell.

This means he is not omnipotent, or else he has control of Hell.
This also means that the Bible (The "Word of God", an infallible book) is wrong.
Meaning God is wrong, and thus not infallible, and thus he cannot be omniscient or he would be infallible.

4. If God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, nor omniscient; then he is not God as defined.

5. Therefore, God cannot exist if Hell exists.

6. If God does not exist, then Hell does not exist.

Therefore, neither exist.

Give or take some minor grammatical and (very) minor logical fallacies, I believe this is at least the starting point for a logical proof against the existance of Hell and, therefore, God. --J. S. Freeman 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Exceedingly few people desire to go to Hell - I suppose there are a few Satanists who believe in the existence of Hell, and want to go there. The idea that there are masses of people desiring Hell is an idea that exists primarily in religious tracts, and only exceedingly rarely in actual people. The whole idea of choosing Hell doesn't add up. I, like everyone here has taken a wrong turn and wound up in a place that I did not intend. I didn't "choose" to go there.--RLent 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Choice" is being tossed around here a bit too much. If we're discussing choice on the level of will, (or "free will") then there are a number of issues with this argument, given that choice is a highly subjective interpretation of causation / simple reception and reaction. I can most certainly observe that no human of a stable mindset would knowingly go down what they perceive to be a wrongful path. However, I do stress that any "choice-pushers" out there suffer the onus of putting this agency of free will into perfect scientific clarity before casually promoting it. Otherwise, it is a very flawed and unstable element of the debate and I have no reason to acknoledge any assertions deriving of it.

Furthermore, I want to add that God is supposedly omnipotent and all-knowing. If this is the case, then all mortal lives and events have been predetermined, a la Determinism. This contradicts any notion of free will -- at least in the Judo-Christian doctrine -- and invalidates the argument that Hell is fair retribution for sinful choices. Clearly, God is the puppetmaster here. And, perhaps, this is where doctrines such as those of Calvinism manage to compensate for such fallacies... Oh, dear. How religion boggles my mind. Grendel 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting a sentence

The article is fairly well written, but I take issue with this sentence:

Three possible ways to do this (while maintaining a belief in God) are the doctrines of Annihilationism, where Hell is seen only as oblivion without consciousness, Universalism, where everyone is saved, without exception, and the Second chance doctrine (or Escapism), where even after one has been sent to Hell, one can still accept God and be saved. This would seem to deny the story Jesus told about Dives and Lazarus.

Unfortunately, this betrays a grave misunderstanding of the Dives and Lazarus saying. This saying of Jesus was not a "story" but a parable. It was not intended to be taken literally, and even if it were, the word translated "Hell" in the parable is "Hades," referring to Sheol - totally unrelated to Gehenna, the punishment-Hell referred to in this article. None of Jesus' parables were intended to be interpreted literally. There is really no good way to resolve this other than to excise the statement from the paragraph.

[edit] Lewis quote misinterpreted?

As i was reading this article (which does come off as amateurish), i was confused by the interpretation of the C.S. Lewis quote. Here it is: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

The article says "On the latter view, which seems suggested by Lewis, those in hell can get to heaven if they choose to accept God." The Lewis quote does not imply that "in the end", a person can effect his free will to escape hell. It is saying that you can either choose God's perfect will for your life, or you can choose to live your life apart from God. And in the end, God will say "very well - you did it your way. Have a big slice o' hell."

[edit] needs work, or will be deleted

this article uses many lay assumption on the steretypical nature of hell ignoring alternative views. Also, it just is not encyclopedia worthy at this point and may be deleted if serous work is not invested immediatly -ishmaelblues

[edit] See also

I removed First War in Heaven and Areopagitica from See also, as they have nothing to do with this article. — coelacan talk — 07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProblem_of_Hell_d907.html"