Nonexistance = Hell

[fr0d0]

I saw this on a tomb in Pompeii : "I was not. I was. I am not. I don't care".That will do me as an epitaph.

Funny you're speaking from death

I was not. I am. I won't be.

[Minimalist]

I like to think of hell as an experience inside of life,

Think of an evening with an insurance salesman. That's HELL, man.

[Autumnlicious]

After an MRI today, I've decided purgatory is being stuck inside of an MRI machine, waiting for it to end its eternal symphony of grumbles.

[theblindferrengi]

An MRI is like they use you to take an elephants temperature.

[Darwinian]

The only way one can say hell does not exist from firsthand experience is to have experienced firsthand every possible spiritual abode and not found hell among them. Obviously nobody alive on this earth today may truthfully make the claim that they have done so. Therefore, our knowledge of the existence or mythology of hell is based solely on sources other than firsthand experience.

True, but you could also say the same for the halls of Valhalla or the Greek underworld or the river styx etc. etc.

[tackattack]

I agree alex. Amongst my fellow Christians I may quibble about the meaning of the concept, but that's all they (heaven and hell)are concepts. As concepts the purest forms would be heaven is oneness with God and hell would be seperation from God. Hell could be a lake of fire, the atheists version of nothingness after death, or life on earth seperated from God. Heaven could be some Shangrila, 17 virgin palace, or the last flickerings of brain activity warped in space-time, by seperation of self, to seem like eternity. Neither are reasons to believe in/worship God and at best, could only be concepts to understand the afterlife.

[Violet]

The only way one can say hell does not exist from firsthand experience is to have experienced firsthand every possible spiritual abode and not found hell among them. Obviously nobody alive on this earth today may truthfully make the claim that they have done so. Therefore, our knowledge of the existence or mythology of hell is based solely on sources other than firsthand experience.

Not so. Anyone can say anything they like. Observe:


Purple quarted gron coloured toadstool Pikachu water nigga OMNOMNOM that telephone!


Point being... a person can say anything they like, even if it is wrong. Further... (using your example that a person cannot say a thing does not exist from firsthand experience) why are we assuming that they haven't "experienced firsthand every possible spiritual abode and not found hell among them" in the first place? Any claim that they cannot make that claim truthfully is subject to the questioning of accuracy behind the claim. A persons' knowledge of "Hell" may be an entirely individual construct, that by chance is exactly the same as the "Hell" we are imagining in this instance.

I agree with you overall, in that I understand the point you were trying to make... one might hope that you already know everything outlined in this post

[downbeatplumb]

The only way one can say hell does not exist from firsthand experience is to have experienced firsthand every possible spiritual abode and not found hell among them. Obviously nobody alive on this earth today may truthfully make the claim that they have done so. Therefore, our knowledge of the existence or mythology of hell is based solely on sources other than firsthand experience.

Not so. Anyone can say anything they like. Observe:


Purple quarted gron coloured toadstool Pikachu water nigga OMNOMNOM that telephone!


Point being... a person can say anything they like, even if it is wrong. Further... (using your example that a person cannot say a thing does not exist from firsthand experience) why are we assuming that they haven't "experienced firsthand every possible spiritual abode and not found hell among them" in the first place? Any claim that they cannot make that claim truthfully is subject to the questioning of accuracy behind the claim. A persons' knowledge of "Hell" may be an entirely individual construct, that by chance is exactly the same as the "Hell" we are imagining in this instance.

I agree with you overall, in that I understand the point you were trying to make... one might hope that you already know everything outlined in this post

Did you have that picture already?
If not, you put in way more effort than I ever would for a single post.

[Welsh cake]

Okay, bare with me here. I wasn't sure whether this should go into the Religion forum or the Philosophy forum, so I thought it'd be best to put it here. Seeing as it's dealing with a religious concept such as Hell.

I do believe in Hell, but not exactly the kind of fire and brimstone Hell that some proclaim God will smite you to when you die, if you were bad in life. I believe Hell, liek pretty much anything else real, is a state of mind which one can achieve both before and after death. The only difference between Hell in lfie and Hell in death is that after death, there is no changing it. You chose your fate(as you chose your state of mind), and are stuck with the responsibility of that decision for the rest of your (after)life.

Why do I believe this? Well, personal accountability is the way the world has and always will work, I'd say. You are accountable for no one's actions and decisions but your own, to think otherwise seems foolish. You cannot control what people do, only what they know.(thanks for having that in your sig so long, tackattack!)

I don't necessarilly want to focus on the 'why' God works that way part, so much as the 'how.' I'm sure it will eventually boil down to both, but for now I'd like to pose a question.

Is non-existance a form of Hell?

Think about this for a moment. I hear a lot of atheists say "Well I wasn't aware I didn't exist before I was born, why would I care after I am dead?" Well, how do you know there is no such thing as conscious non-existance? Is it possible to have a conscious awareness of your own non-existance, or no?

Another factor here is that existance, ultimately, is the best and brightest example of free will. So long as you exist, you have the opportunity to change, to learn, to grow and to d owhat you believe is right. So long as you exist, you can change your fate and your circumstances. Even if it's only your perception of said circumstances, you can thoroughly control your own outlook while still existing.

Not so while not exitsing. There is no possible way to change your 'outlook' on non-existance, because you have no outlook. You have no perception! There is nothing which can be changed, nothing which can be viewed differently. Free will is essentially obliteated.

Maybe this would be better for a theism based forum, but...I think it's interesting, nonetheless. What do y'all think, regardless of belief in Hell or not?

Sorry, I'm unable to give any comment on your beliefs or discuss my thoughts with you unless you rationally justify them first, for instance:

Why do you think there's a life after death?
Why do you think there's a hell in the afterlife?
Why do you think people are even going there?
Why do you think it's a 'state of mind' as opposed to the literalist biblical version of a realm of fire and brimstone?
Why do you think people choose eternal punishment when it is clearly God/Jesus inflicting punishment that is eternal?
Why do you think people can change in this life but not the afterlife?
Why do you think the doctrine on Hell is the same thing as ceasing to exist i.e. Annihilationism?