31-05-2005 20:58									#1
	What if Hell were the only afterlife? Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

And God and heaven was an invention of the devil just to give us hope while alive, only to have it stolen from us in death and an eternity in hell. The worst torture is having all hope taken from you.

That was the nightmare I woke up from this morning.

	31-05-2005 21:00									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Your nightmare is only true for communists.

	31-05-2005 21:01									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

what pchang said.

	31-05-2005 21:02									#4
	Tired of ads?

quote: What if Hell were the only afterlife?

That'd probably make a good number of people on the left very happy, since that would mean all the religious people are going to Hell.

	31-05-2005 21:11									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

lots of air conditioners

	31-05-2005 21:18									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

An engineer dies and reports to hell. Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements. After a while, they've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and the engineer is a pretty popular guy. One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, "So, how's it going down there in hell?" Satan replies, "Hey things are going great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next." God replies, "What??? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake -- he should never have gotten down there; send him up here." Satan says, "No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him." God says, "Send him back up here or I'll sue." Satan laughs uproariously and answers, "Yeah, right. And just where are you going to get a lawyer?"

	31-05-2005 21:29									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi That'd probably make a good number of people on the left very happy, since that would mean all the religious people are going to Hell.

Not really, I was hoping to be rid of them.

Then again, it wouldn't be hell without them, na would it.

	31-05-2005 21:30									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi That'd probably make a good number of people on the left very happy, since that would mean all the religious people are going to Hell.

NO, all Monotheists.

The Hindus have a ticket out of this never ending cycle. Them and the Buddhists.

Sucker!

	31-05-2005 21:31									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hell is here, now.

	31-05-2005 21:37									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap NO, all Monotheists. The Hindus have a ticket out of this never ending cycle. Them and the Buddhists.

No. Everyone goes to hell, even atheists. And we suffer for eternity. There is no avoiding it, only delaying it by living longer, and what are a few years compared to an eternity of unimaginable torment?

	31-05-2005 21:39									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 lots of air conditioners

	31-05-2005 21:42									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No. Everyone goes to hell, even atheists. And we suffer for eternity. There is no avoiding it, only delaying it by living longer, and what are a few years compared to an eternity of unimaginable torment?

Obviously you have gone off your rocker and began to be influenced by that opiate of the masses.

You are hearby kicked out of the party!

Ex-comrade

	31-05-2005 21:51									#13
	Remove this text

The Purpose of Hell is a logical neccesity in Christiain thought. Hell is defined as a state of complete and total seperation from God. Because God is the source of all good, to be perfectly seperated from God as you are in Hell is the most painful possible existence. But yet people need to have the choice of being able to be seperated from God. Without the option of seperation from God, if there were only heaven, then you would be forced to be with God. That would not be right of God to force people who don't want to be with him to be with him, and moreover if you were forced to love God as is neccesary to be in Heaven, then such love would not be genuine as it would be forced.

If you are interested, here is an article by someone who disagrees with the Church on many things, but nonetheless does a pretty good job explaining the neccesity of Hell:

http://doeshellexist.blogspot.com/

quote: Greetings! Amongst the conservatives who frequent Catholic discussion boards, Catholic blogs, and apologetics sites, there is often a misconception that progressive and liberal Catholics do not believe in the concept of sin or the reality of hell. Of course, the concept of hell is a difficult concept to reconcile with a good and loving God. What on earth can a person do that merits eternal punishment in a lake of fire? Many who accept the teaching of mercy preached by Jesus wonder why a merciful God would not permit an opportunity for even a Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler to repent in the next life, after an appropriate time in some sort of purgatory? As early as the second century of the common era, Christians struggled with this question. Origen believed that there would be a day when Satan would convert and hell would be emptied. To this day, the Jehovah's Witnesses agree with Origen that there will be a day when all souls are saved. In Eastern non-Christian religions, it is generally believed that a soul is reincarnated several times until the soul reaches a state of perfection where it is set free from the cycle of rebirths. However, the position maintained by hierarchy in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have always taught that hell is an eternal reality, and that is incorrect to believe that Satan will one day be saved. Most Protestant denominations, especially the Evangelicals and conservative mainline Protestants have also maintained the reality of an eternal state called hell. Yet all three major branches of Christianity claim that God is infinitely merciful and perfectly just in all his ways. How can this be? In my opinion, the concept of an eternal hell is the greatest compliment to human freedom. I know this strikes some people as a mere play on words. Yet, I am not simply playing a semantic game. If hell does not really exist, if it is not possible to irrevocably choose against God, then I am not a free person at all. I am a puppet who is fated to do what God wants...if I don't do his will today, I will wind up doing it eventually, almost by force. We too often get to hung up on images of hell as a place of unquenchable fire wreaking of sulfur where there is gnashing of teeth and worms that never die and a darkness that is unpenetratable. These are metaphors for a horrendous reality. Regarding this metaphoric language, it is important not to get too caught up in literally interpreting what is meant to describe a state of being. It is true that the Church maintains that we cannot dogmatically say that hell does not involve a real physical pain or real fire. At the same time, the Church also does not maintain dogmatically that we absolutely must say these metaphors are literal. We simply do not know the physical characteristics of hell. However, all Christians have maintained throughout all ages that the greatest pain of hell is the sense of God's absence. Why would a good and merciful God be absent to his own creation? Can the God who is Absolute Being truly be absent from his creation? Why would a good and loving God cast his creatures away from himself forever? The answer to these questions are that God is not ontologically absent from his creatures. Nor does God cast souls into hell! Rather, the creature chooses to reject God, and this rejection is the state of being called hell. We taste this reality here on earth when we suffer negative consequences for sin according to the universal law of justice (what some religions refer to as karma). In saying that an eternal state of hell exist, we are saying that the human person has been created with such freedom that we are able to irrevocably reject God, who is Absolute Goodness and Absolute Being. In effect, the creature freely chooses to reject his or her own nature, which emanates from God. God, because of her own goodness, permits the creature to do this. The condition for the possibility of choosing God is the possibility of rejecting God. Hell is the reality of this choice, even if no soul actually inhabits the reality. Why doesn't God simply annihilate the sinner, as the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain? We are created in God's own image and likeness. The human person has an incomparable dignity and infinite value. It would be evil of a good Creator to obliterate the height of her own creation - a being in his own likeness. God cannot annihilate us without, in effect, admitting he made a mistake, which is impossible. So God voluntarily has put herself in a sort of "Catch-22" situation. Having created us, she cannot obliterate us without doing evil. On the other hand, she cannot force us to love her and choose her either, because to do so would violate our freedom, which is the very principle by which we most image her likeness! Love must be free or it is not love. God is not a cosmic rapist. He will try to entice us, perhaps even seduce us, but he will not force himself upon us. If we chose to reject him, he honors our decision. While young men in modern society may have hard time understanding that no means no, God understands it perfectly, and always respects our own free choice! Yet, how can a single action be an eternal rejection of God? Christ answers this question by saying that only one sin is truly unforgivable in this life and the next - namely, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! This sin is not a single act, but an ongoing and deliberate rejection of the goodness of God. Blasphemy of the Spirit is the willful rejection of grace. It is an habitual disposition more than a single act. Actions that we call sin, such as murder and adultery, represent a movement of the heart toward this blasphemy, but the act itself is not blasphemy of the Spirit. Indeed, blashpemy of the Spirit is not a single act, but a habitual state of the heart. It is interesting to me that Satan is called the Accuser in the Bible (Rev 12:10). The Holy Spirit is called the Paracleet (a sort of legal advocate). Jesus is portrayed as the perfect man making atonement for us on our behalf before a judge who is our loving and merciful father. The image I see in the New Testament is that God is trying to defend humanity against the prosecuting attorney - Satan. Maybe blasphemy against the Spirit is despair of God's infinite mercy. Despite the merciful image of Christ portrayed in the Gospels that even atheist recognize, Christ speaks more of hell than any other character in the Bible. Christ's mercy is manifested in his desire to see none of us make the choice to eternally reject God! It is precisely in his manifestation of mercy for particular acts that Christ is communicating to us that God never gives up on us. The only way to achieve eternal separation from God is by our own decision! God is not only Absolute Being, but pure love. Where there is love, there is God. Individual acts that we call sin have a tendency towards blasphemy of the spirit as they reveal a lack of perfect love. We were created with a natural capacity to love God with our whole mind, heart and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. While conservatives emphasize our fallen state and the effects of original sin that make all of us capable of and attracted to great evil, progressives emphasize that we simultaneously have the capacity and desire to respond to grace. We were created for love! While hell is a real a possibility, the Church has never dogmatically said any particular human person is in hell. It is our hope that as many souls as possible will be saved, and we even hold out hope that the Adolf Hitlers and the Saddam Husseins will be saved. Conservatives often wish to emphasize God's perfect justice and therefore sometimes state that some souls "deserve" to go to hell. It is true that a good and loving God could hardly be good and just if he ignored the cry of the poor and oppressed. What kind of God lets a pedophile abuse a child with impunity? How can murderers go without suffering some consequence for their actions? Progressives point to the doctrine of original sin and suggest that all of us are guilty of horrendous crimes, if not in act, at least in thought. If we focus solely on justice, we all deserve temporal punishment of some sort. Traditional theology says that Christ bore the penalty of sin on the cross, and conquered sin and death through his resurrection. In contemporary theology, God's suffering with us awakens compassion in the human heart. Either way, sin is not the final word, which is the entire point of the Gospel! Progressives do believe in the law of justice. Yet we maintain that the law of mercy operates with the law of justice in such a way that justice appears to be denied to those without a God's eye view. Justice is not truly denied, though it appears to be on the surface. It is something like the way an airplane seems to defy the law of gravity because the laws of aerodynamics permit tons of metal to lift from the ground. It is not that justice is not satisfied. Just as gravity still operates on the flying plane, justice still operates on the soul of the one saved by mercy. Any repentant sinner can attest to the pain experienced in true contrition even as we witness to the joy of knowing God is infinitely merciful. God's mercy becomes an attraction to act rightly. God's grace melts hearts of stone and changes them to hearts of living human flesh. The ten-commandments act as a road-map to good loving. We are to worship none other than God, and to avoid using her name vainly (such as swearing to falsehood or invoking a curse on another of her children). We are to live in awareness of her presence cultivated by honoring the Sabbath. We are to give due respect and honor to our parents and elders. We are to respect human life as we value our own lives. We are to honor the sacred meaning of human sexuality and our power to share in God's procreative power. We are to respect the property rights of others and to cultivate honesty and the pursuit of truth in all we do. We are to avoid jealousy and inappropriate lust. Living according to these principles leads to a happier existence and a growth in love in this earthly life. Thus, we begin to taste of heaven as we grow in loving communion with those around us. This growth in love forces us out of ourselves to a lively and compassionate concern for others, who image God just as we do. Indeed, it is in our freely chosen and loving relationships that we image the Trinity, three persons in perfect union! The progressive tendency to focus on social justice issues is an attempt to take the lessons of individual morality and apply the same principles to political and economic structures and cultural symbols to discern how compassion can be further fostered and nourished while sin is further discouraged. Conservatives often see this shift in focus from individual morality to politics as a dangerous distraction to growth in personal character. Progressives see a communitarian aspect to the Biblical revelation that makes it necessary to always look beyond individual righteousness in order to actually become individually righteous. In particular, the progressive seeks to name the ways in which language shapes consciousness to begin thinking of others as less than an image of the divine. Thus, progressives speak out for marginalized people and underdogs such as the poor, women in the Church, people of color in the United States, the developing nations, workers, gays and lesbians, and so forth. In doing this, we seek to imitate the way Christ reached out to the oppressed and marginalized in first century Palestine. I was recently asked by a conservative Protestant Christian who feels some compassion for homosexuals how I can write essays that seem to encourage homosexual behavior. He asked why I am not afraid that I might be giving advice that will send a soul to hell. My response is simply that I am more sure that I would be choosing hell for myself by mistreating and failing to love the person with homosexual tendencies than I am sure that homosexual acts always and everywhere tend toward blasphemy of the Spirit. It is easier to judge my own actions and intentions than those of another, even if it is sometimes difficult to judge my own intentions. There needs to be some room for Christians of good conscience to admit when they are uncertain what is being said in their conscience - and that is the point of labeling oneself a "progressive" Catholic. A progressive is open to a change in direction under the guidence of the Spirit - a development of doctrine beyond the understanding of a prior generation while trying to maintain the values inherent in old ways of expressing the faith. We seek continuity with the past without necessarily seeking identity with the past. The conservatives point out that it is precisely because of the same personal uncertainty that I admit that they feel the most humble position is to follow the teachings of those with due authority, and we Catholics believe that the Pope has authority from Christ (Protestants can substitute Biblical literalism). Ultimately, I agree with the conservative that the primacy of Rome is based on the authority of Christ, and can even be infallible under certain circumstances. Likewise, some verses of Scripture are clearer than others. However, the Pope proclaims and defines teachings with varying degrees of papal authority. When infallibility is not being invoked, I am still left with responsibility for my own decisions and actions based on where I discern the greater certitude within my own conscience. Certainly I will listen to the Pope's non-infallible opinion in trying to make the right decision, but if his arguments do not make sense, and he is not invoking infallibility, I will not be held accountable to blind obedience, but to whether I followed my conscience! Once again, when I am uncertain and the Pope has not spoken infallibly and the Bible is somewhat unclear, I am thrust back to the fact that I am more certain it is wrong to mistreat and falsely or rashly judge the homosexual person than I am certain that homosexual acts are universally wrong. Thus, the issue of a threat of hell to shut me up becomes mute. Of course, my conscience may be mal-formed, but precisely because it is mal-formed, I cannot know this, and unlike human law, God considers ignorance a mitigating circumstance! Yet, I am getting off track by getting into these specific moral debates. It does not matter who is right or wrong about the morality of homosexual acts in a discussion about whether hell ultimately exists or not. Discussion of moral acts and distinctions between personal and social sin and so forth are interesting. Yet, ultimately, our moral choices point to a condition of the heart. The heart is either tending toward God or away from God. We all can make mistakes along the way, but there is a fundamental option being exercised in time through our habits. Whatever sin is, it is ultimately aimed at describing the reality of moving away from God. This is what hell is - the decision to move away from God. Thus, my main point in this essay is that I agree with conservatives that hell is a reality. Being a liberal or a progressive Catholic is not a denial of the existence of the reality of a state called hell. We can move in a direction that is continually away from God, and if we cannot, we are not free beings! I sometimes like to think that maybe God will put all of us in the same physical place after we die. To a person who loved greatly, like a Mother Teresa of Calcutta or a Ghandi, there will be great joy. Afterall, we all made it! To someone like Hitler, there may be distress because all these Jews are here. Hell is our own creation by our own choice....not a punishment imposed by God from without! Yet, hell is real! Perhaps there is nobody "in" that reality we call hell (we can only hope nobody inhabits it as a phisical place). However, the state of hell's very existence is necessary, for if the state of being called hell does not exist, I am not free to reject God, and if I am not free to reject God, I am not free to love God in any meaningful sense of the word! Peace and Blessings! Jcecil3

It would be a strange and illogical system in which there was only a Hell.

	31-05-2005 21:56									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Equally as strange and illogical as one that has God, heaven and Hell.

But hey, who's judging...

	31-05-2005 21:57									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi It would be a strange and illogical system in which there was only a Hell.

I think chegitz guevara's *ahem* vision was that there is no God but there is a Satan. Ergo, all afterlife is a complete and utter separation from God. Ergo, all afterlife is hell. Religion is just a lie spread by Satan to build suspense.


Ten bucks say that che is not going to get six billion followers overnight.

	31-05-2005 22:04									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Actually, as I think about it, this is a similar vision of the afterlife as was held by the ancient Greeks, though no Elysium, and Hades is more horrible.

	31-05-2005 22:05									#17
	Put an end to popups!

This isn't about getting followers, it was a nasty dream I had just before waking.

	31-05-2005 22:09									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Equally as strange and illogical as one that has God, heaven and Hell."

How is that illogical?

quote: I think chegitz guevara's *ahem* vision was that there is no God but there is a Satan. Ergo, all afterlife is a complete and utter separation from God. Ergo, all afterlife is hell. Religion is just a lie spread by Satan to build suspense.

Well, then would you be posing Satan as the creator of the universe? If we are having a non-atheistic system with this universe being created, there are pleasures in this world, there is happiness that exists. If Satan created the Universe, why would he bother allow for the possibility of such things? He could just throw us into Hell right away.

	31-05-2005 22:12									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi "Equally as strange and illogical as one that has God, heaven and Hell." How is that illogical?

There is no logical reason to believe in a singular eternal omnicient, omnipotent creator intelligence. Hence, it is an illogical belief.

Faith =/ Logic.

	31-05-2005 22:23									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

No, you just feel that theism in unsupported by empirical evidence. For it to be illogical it would need to be internally inconstitent.

	31-05-2005 22:39									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi No, you just feel that theism in unsupported by empirical evidence. For it to be illogical it would need to be internally inconstitent.

So according to you, any random idea that is simply internally consistent consitutes a logical world view.

I never knew you were such a darling of relativism.

	31-05-2005 22:44									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Dreams can be a warning of a reality, Is anyone likely to Murder you in the next few days Che?

	31-05-2005 22:49									#23
	Tired of ads?

Shi is right GePap. On the understanding of logic accepted by most contemporary philosophers logic has nothing to do with the state of the world, but only with the rules of consistency governing the language we use to describe it.

As a pragmatist, I deny this, but it doesn't necessarily lead to relativism.

	31-05-2005 22:51									#24
	Support Apolyton

I got Agahton to say Shi was right

	31-05-2005 22:55									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I had to grit my teeth before posting.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh Shi?

	31-05-2005 22:57									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I guess I don't buy into the current notion of logic, simply because I do care about the inherent logic of the innitial statement.

Decinding to say "The Universe was created by a singular eternal, monicient, omnipotent, good entity" and then accepting that system as logical as long as you never violate that innitial statement does not actually seem a logical thing to do for me, anymore than it is logical for me to accept the theory that we are transplanted aliens.

	31-05-2005 23:09									#27
	Re: What if Hell were the only afterlife? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara And God and heaven was an invention of the devil just to give us hope while alive, only to have it stolen from us in death and an eternity in hell. The worst torture is having all hope taken from you. That was the nightmare I woke up from this morning.

Well, if you are still with your wife in the afterlife, are you in heaven or are you in hell?

	31-05-2005 23:16									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

I had a dream the other night that I was attending the Metropolitan Opera for a showing of Verdi's Aida. In this dream, I slept through the opera. Yes, I dreamt about sleep.

Currently, I am watching Prime Minister Question Time (Canada style) on C-SPAN.

These may be variations of Hell?

	31-05-2005 23:47									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Well, then would you be posing Satan as the creator of the universe? If we are having a non-atheistic system with this universe being created, there are pleasures in this world, there is happiness that exists. If Satan created the Universe, why would he bother allow for the possibility of such things? He could just throw us into Hell right away.

Longing for the periods of happiness that we'ce experienced would make the torment that much worse.

	01-06-2005 00:56									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I guess I don't buy into the current notion of logic, simply because I do care about the inherent logic of the innitial statement.

What other notion is there? Logical truths are tautologies: they don't say anything about the state of the world, since they are true whatever obtains in the world.

It is logically possible for grass to be naturally pink, but it just doesn't happen to be, because it is physically impossible.

It's logically impossible for there to be a round square or a married bachelor because those statements contain internal contradictions. Perhaps the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God contains a contradiction, in which case it is logically impossible for such a being to exist.

But, one of the most famous attempts at using logical truth to argue about God posits his existence as a logical truth which it is contradictory to deny: this is the famous Ontological Proof of St. Anselm.

quote: Decinding to say "The Universe was created by a singular eternal, monicient, omnipotent, good entity" and then accepting that system as logical as long as you never violate that innitial statement does not actually seem a logical thing to do for me, anymore than it is logical for me to accept the theory that we are transplanted aliens.

I think the word you want is "rational" rather than "logical". It's not illogical to believe in purple bunnies, but it is irrational for most people to believe in them given that they have no evidence to do so.