Question 8 for Christians

[Libsmasher]

What exactly is the nature of hell? No gauzy metaphors, or blurry religious jargon, please.

 

[BigRob]

What exactly is the nature of hell? No gauzy metaphors, or blurry religious jargon, please.

For Catholics it came about because of this I believe:

This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
(See Mt 5:22, 29; 10:28; 13:42, 50; Mk 9:43-48, Mt 13:41-42 and Mt 25:41)

 

[Libsmasher]

So it's literally standing around in the midst of fire, as it is represented in cartoons?

 

[BigRob]

So it's literally standing around in the midst of fire, as it is represented in cartoons?

I think it is supposed to be a metaphor for the absence of God.

 

[Libsmasher]

I think it is supposed to be a metaphor for the absence of God.

In that case you are actually telling me what it's "NOT" (not being in the presence of God), whereas I want to know what it IS.

 

[BigRob]

In that case you are actually telling me what it's "NOT" (not being in the presence of God), whereas I want to know what it IS.

Ok then, well it IS the absence of God then lol

I am not sure how to answer this since all religious will have a different take on it, and interpretations will differ within the same religion. From what I understand it to be is what I said, the absence of God when you die.

 

[9sublime]

I think its funny that a religious person is yet to define exactly what hell is, and some of them don't know what it is, despite believing in their religion. I wouldn't believe in something of such magnitude unless I knew a damn lot more about it than most religious folks. So many questions you ask them recieve an answer like "Just have faith", or "its part of Gods great plan" or "its not meant for us to know."

 

[Federal Farmer]

I think its funny that a religious person is yet to define exactly what hell is, and some of them don't know what it is, despite believing in their religion. I wouldn't believe in something of such magnitude unless I knew a damn lot more about it than most religious folks. So many questions you ask them recieve an answer like "Just have faith", or "its part of Gods great plan" or "its not meant for us to know."

So I take it that, by your own admission, you don't believe in Science either, since you don't know "a damn lot more about" Quantum Mechanics than most folks. Relying instead on "just have faith" in the scientists, or "it's part of" sciences "great plan"?

I think it's funny when an Atheist person is yet to define exactly what Science is, and some of them don't know what it is, despite believing in it, especially when they try to use it a some sort of cudgel against religion.

 

[BigRob]

I think its funny that a religious person is yet to define exactly what hell is, and some of them don't know what it is, despite believing in their religion. I wouldn't believe in something of such magnitude unless I knew a damn lot more about it than most religious folks. So many questions you ask them recieve an answer like "Just have faith", or "its part of Gods great plan" or "its not meant for us to know."

I think the problem is that there will be no universal definition. I simply stated what I viewed it as, and apparently that was not acceptable, so I pointed out that most faiths and many people within a faith have their own interpretation on the matter.

I have never said "just have faith" and other comments such as that, I simply defined my interpretation of it. Why is that not acceptable?

 

[Libsmasher]

So I take it that, by your own admission, you don't believe in Science either, since you don't know "a damn lot more about" Quantum Mechanics than most folks. Relying instead on "just have faith" in the scientists, or "it's part of" sciences "great plan"?

I think it's funny when an Atheist person is yet to define exactly what Science is, and some of them don't know what it is, despite believing in it, especially when they try to use it a some sort of cudgel against religion.

Quantum mechanics is a theory, it seeks to give an explanation to what is observed, and does it quite well. It makes predictions which can be tested. This is in contrast to religion, which makes claims about fundamental truth, but is not testable.

 

[Libsmasher]

Ok then, well it IS the absence of God then lol

I am not sure how to answer this since all religious will have a different take on it, and interpretations will differ within the same religion. From what I understand it to be is what I said, the absence of God when you die.

What's happening here is as if I asked you what you had for dinner, and you said "I didn't have beef stew."

 

[BigRob]

What's happening here is as if I asked you what you had for dinner, and you said "I didn't have beef stew."

Well I will then again say that its interpretation is different to everyone and it will vary between religions as well as in religions. I do not think that there is some pit of fire somewhere if thats what you are asking. I think the message that is given out in the Bible about it is that people are empty without the presence of God, and its just a reminder that people should turn to God,of course it can be and is interpreted a million different ways.

It also raises the interesting point of who Jesus was actually talking to in his stories. I think he was talking to an oppressed people (under Roman occupation) and the vision of Hell was one of divine violence against their oppressors since they were living in "sin." Basically as a way to help people cope with their situation in life. (in my opinion)

Also, we see examples of this all throughout the Bible of Divine violence. It is really interesting stuff actually if you want to get into it, I highly recommend reading about divine violence (especially in the Old Testament) and how it carried over to the New Testament and what it meant for the people who it was directed at.

It is also interesting to think about the "kingdom of god" in this regard, as it was impossible to be a Rabbi of any kind and not be political back then, and the Romans would have been very aware of anyone talking about a "kingdom" without a Roman presence in it.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Quantum mechanics is a theory, it seeks to give an explanation to what is observed, and does it quite well. It makes predictions which can be tested. This is in contrast to religion, which makes claims about fundamental truth, but is not testable.

Science makes "predictions", and has many hypotheses that they routinely masquerade around as "Theories" (even when they don't meet the basic criteria of a theory), that cannot be observed, tested, or even properly predicted, yet people all over the world, especially Atheists, regularly bow down to their own God which they call "science", while rabidly denying that they even have a religion, regardless of all of the evidence to the contrary.

The truth is that anyone who is not a "scientist", in a particular field, is taking the work of others as a matter of faith, which is the very thing that they consistently accuse believers of doing, as if it were a bad thing. The biggest difference between people of faith and Atheists is that people of faith are honest enough to readily acknowledge that they do not have all the answers (they are not God), and that they take take things that they observe, but do not understand, on faith, as a matter of course. Atheists constantly deny that they have faith, even though they routinely do accept things as a matter of faith (can we say hypocrisy?).

For example, and I do not know, nor do I care, if you're an Atheist or not, but you made the observation that Quantum Mechanics "seeks to provide an explanation of what is observed, and it does it quite well", so the question to you is; do you a have a PhD in Physics, and are you now, or have you ever been, employed as a Physicist who specializes in Quantum Mechanics, or are you taking their theories on faith?

You say that people of faith make claims about fundamental truths, but their explanations are not testable. I would disagree. The fact is that people of faith aren't looking for, nor do they need to make any claims about your "fundamental truths" which need to be tested. People of faith say that God created the universe, science says that there was a Big Bang which created the universe. What created the Big Bang? We do not know, so again, science can only surmise and guess at an explanation that doesn't have any bearing on believers.

The fact of the matter, when it comes to God, a lack of evidence of Gods existence is not evidence of a lack of God, and that's exactly what Atheists are attempting to claim. It's a logical fallacy, and no amount of protestation to the contrary can change that. The other point that most Atheists overlook is that the vast majority of believers simply do not care if they Atheists believe or not. It's a matter of complete indifference to us, and a personal choice that they have made for themselves. Where the rub comes in is that Atheists steadfastly refuse to extend the same courtesy to believers, once again exhibiting for all the world to see, their inherent hypocrisy.

 

[foggedinn]

What exactly is the nature of hell? No gauzy metaphors, or blurry religious jargon, please.

You should be a prosecutor. Then you could ask, "Do you still beat your wife?"

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Science makes "predictions", and has many hypotheses that they routinely masquerade around as "Theories" (even when they don't meet the basic criteria of a theory), that cannot be observed, tested, or even properly predicted, yet people all over the world, especially Atheists, regularly bow down to their own God which they call "science", while rabidly denying that they even have a religion, regardless of all of the evidence to the contrary.

The truth is that anyone who is not a "scientist", in a particular field, is taking the work of others as a matter of faith, which is the very thing that they consistently accuse believers of doing, as if it were a bad thing. The biggest difference between people of faith and Atheists is that people of faith are honest enough to readily acknowledge that they do not have all the answers (they are not God), and that they take take things that they observe, but do not understand, on faith, as a matter of course. Atheists constantly deny that they have faith, even though they routinely do accept things as a matter of faith (can we say hypocrisy?).

For example, and I do not know, nor do I care, if you're an Atheist or not, but you made the observation that Quantum Mechanics "seeks to provide an explanation of what is observed, and it does it quite well", so the question to you is; do you a have a PhD in Physics, and are you now, or have you ever been, employed as a Physicist who specializes in Quantum Mechanics, or are you taking their theories on faith?

You say that people of faith make claims about fundamental truths, but their explanations are not testable. I would disagree. The fact is that people of faith aren't looking for, nor do they need to make any claims about your "fundamental truths" which need to be tested. People of faith say that God created the universe, science says that there was a Big Bang which created the universe. What created the Big Bang? We do not know, so again, science can only surmise and guess at an explanation that doesn't have any bearing on believers.

The fact of the matter, when it comes to God, a lack of evidence of Gods existence is not evidence of a lack of God, and that's exactly what Atheists are attempting to claim. It's a logical fallacy, and no amount of protestation to the contrary can change that. The other point that most Atheists overlook is that the vast majority of believers simply do not care if they Atheists believe or not. It's a matter of complete indifference to us, and a personal choice that they have made for themselves. Where the rub comes in is that Atheists steadfastly refuse to extend the same courtesy to believers, once again exhibiting for all the world to see, their inherent hypocrisy.

A long-winded and fuzzy argument, Farmer. It's true that the cutting edge of science is indistinct, but throughout its history science has been codifying research and theories into facts that are demonstrably true through a process of winnowing the sheep from the goats (evidence-wise). Name any discipline in science and you can study it and repeat the experiments, or make the explosives, or build the airplane, or cure the disease, or prove the mathematical theorem just like your predecessors. Science is always working to narrow its focus on demonstrable, repeatable truth. Science is a very human undertaking and has never made claims of god-like infallibility, but has produced a world of knowledge that impacts every human being.

Religion is just the opposite, you folks started with God's Ultimate Truth in the Purest Form from the lips of the Son of God and you have been spawning new sects that dispute that truth with each other at the rate of nearly two per year since Jesus' birth. You have taken the pure product and polluted and diluted it to the point that there may very well be no truth left in it at all. Religion claims to have god-like truth, but has nothing repeatable to which it can point as being the accomplishment of more than 2000 years of religious wars and theological infighting.