HELL

[Reforged]

Hi yall. Let me start off by saying I don't think it's healthy to focus too much on this subject, regardless of whether you believe in it or not. 

However, what prompted me to write this post was all the talk and questions I see in regards to the belief in Hell. I've explained my views a little bit, by saying that 1. I don't believe Hell is a physical place, 2. I don't believe God "throws" people into Hell, and 3. I believe Hell is the state of being by an individual who has rejected goodness and love, thus rejecting God Himself (since I believe God is those things).

Another belief I have that has been speculated by a few theologians but is not mentioned in the article, is that upon dying, every person gets a final chance to "meet" with God, if you will. And from there they make a conscious and informed decision to either reject or accept Him. (And by accepting or rejecting Him, they are accepting or rejecting love and goodness. So the state of rejection is Hell, the state of acceptance is Heaven.)   

I figured it might be useful to me to lay it all out here so everyone understands where I stand, and so I can refer people back to this post when I get questions or comments regarding Hell. 

Here is a snippet from the article:

By their account, hell is best understood as the condition of total alienation from all that is good, hopeful and loving in the world. What's more, this condition is chosen by the damned themselves, the ultimate exercise of free will, not a punishment engineered by God.

Hell ''is not a 'place' but a 'state,' a person's 'state of being,' in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God,'' declared La Civilta Cattolica, an influential Jesuit magazine based in Rome and closely tied to the Vatican, in a long editorial in July.

The magazine also stated that it is not God who inflicts pain ''through angels or demons as is illustrated in many paintings or is read in the 'Divine Comedy,' '' but the sinner who triggers his own punishment by deliberately rejecting God's grace, thereby entering a great state of pain.

For those interested in reading more: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/18/arts/h...gewanted=1

(The silly part is that the title calls this view a "makeover" but the article goes on to say this view is nothing new in the Church lol)

I think radical claims on how the universe works should be *intensely* focused on. I mean thats important. If someone can prove something we didn't know as a fact about the nature of everything that is very important. Its also very important to be strict over the standard of evidence because its such an important claim. I mean we've all met crazy people screaming such claims on the corner of the street haven't we? Some homeless dude announcing hes a duke and he has a cat for a face. What state would we be in if we accepted those on faith?

Anyway, I guess you're talking morality rather than evidence? Because we could talk all day about the lack of biblical accounts for hell. Anyway you seem nice enough and I'm sure you mean well but theres a couple things wrong with that. 

- How would hell be different from now?

- The lack of Gods presence brings me pain? That doesn't sound pleasant. Why would I be in pain?
 
- Deprivation *forever*? Thats a hell of a sentence. What did I do in the few years I was here for to warrant eternity? 

- Why am I being punished for no receiving sufficient evidence? Gods well, God. He'd know what I require and if he really cares should be more than happy to provide. What is being asked is not unreasonable.

- Aren't I essentially being punished for things I had no control over? How I was created, where I was born, how I was raised, what country I grew up with, what religion, etc etc. And he knows how ALL of it plays out ahead of time.

- Given these problems and whatever ones I'm sure you've already conceived of; why are you willing to accept this concept? It makes no sense ethically or practically. This is supposed to be a system manufactured by a superior mind. Its brilliance should be obvious.