On Hell and Forgiveness

[Catholic_Lady]

Not having a body will probably put a dent in enjoying, well...just everything. Think about that for a minute. No input, no output. 

In heaven, we are promised a new body that does not decay. It seems our souls are designed to be embodied for optimal performance.

Sorry, not a specific answer to your question, but seemed relevant to point out that such talk about having anything in hell is wrong.

Again, I don't see the logic. Why would we not be able to experience happiness even if disembodied? Why would it be excluded simply because we are removed from the 'pure' version?

Why would we not be able to experience intellectual stimulation? be able to think deeply about various concepts?

If hell is is simply being separated from God, I fail to see the negative side. If it is torture, that simply makes the creator evil. Either way, 'furthest from Him is best'.

No, not from the "pure" version. There is only one version.

---

Since God is love, and therefore joy itself, the absence of Him would mean the absence of joy. So if that is true, then no, it is not possible for there to be any other alternative. The same way that you can't be wet but have an absence of water. It isn't a punishment, just a fact of life.

God is good, which is precisely why He allows us to choose Him, or to choose "not Him." He gives us the freedom and independence to be our own person and doesn't force us to accept something we don't want.

Now liberally insert 'allegedly' or 'I speculate' or 'I read in a book' into your post, and you'll immediately clear the air of that lingering odor of dishonest assertion that always accompanies Christian talk of the afterlife.

That is what I was implying when I said "if all this is true."

I believe it, but there is a chance that I could be wrong.

[Amarok]

No, not from the "pure" version. There is only one version

No matter the version the complaint remains 

That is what I was implying when I said "if all this is true." 

I believe it, but there is a chance that I could be wrong.

A statement i reject as utterly implausible and if true is no less awful .

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol, I'll start making a disclaimer on every post. "Disclaimer: this is all my belief/opinion". That way discussion won't be shut down by someone responding with "Well how do you know! Why are you passing this on as fact. Blah blah blah!" ?

[Amarok]

By all means but i don't it will alter the responses much

[Catholic_Lady]

I know. The only mofo who did it was cross lol.

(All in good fun, cross, you know I like ya)

[SteveII]

Not having a body will probably put a dent in enjoying, well...just everything. Think about that for a minute. No input, no output. 

In heaven, we are promised a new body that does not decay. It seems our souls are designed to be embodied for optimal performance.

Sorry, not a specific answer to your question, but seemed relevant to point out that such talk about having anything in hell is wrong.

Again, I don't see the logic. Why would we not be able to experience happiness even if disembodied? Why would it be excluded simply because we are removed from the 'pure' version?

Why would we not be able to experience intellectual stimulation? be able to think deeply about various concepts?

If hell is is simply being separated from God, I fail to see the negative side. If it is torture, that simply makes the creator evil. Either way, 'furthest from Him is best'.

What?!

Forget the "pure version". If you don't have a body, you do not have inputs. You don't have outputs. You will not experience anything but contemplation. How in the world could you experience happiness!? That would be torture after like a day or two--not to mention years. That is to say nothing about whatever effect the total removal of God's presence would have on your soul--which you would not have experienced to that point--so who knows what that would be like.

[Paraselene]

The existence of the soul is as much a delusion as the existence of god.

[Catholic_Lady]

Either way, 'furthest from Him is best'.

Poly, may I ask you why? I'm not trying to change your mind or challenge you. I am genuinely curious to understand your perspective.

Hypothetical scenario:

At the moment of your death God appears before you and you realize at that moment that you were wrong about Him. He isn't an evil monster, or a tyrant like you always thought He would be if He were real. Things that you misunderstood about Him would be made clear. You see that He is good and loving. And you see that not only is He good and loving, but that He is literally goodness and love itself. And you understand at that moment that choosing to accept His love would mean complete fulfillment. It wouldn't be boring or bad, like you thought. It would be the ultimate fulfillment - complete joy and love.

Furthermore, choosing to "accepting His love" wouldn't be of any cost to you. All it means is that you reject greed (which is the opposite of love), admit/feel remorse for your wrongdoings and mistakes, and desire true goodness and love going forward. That is all accepting God's love would imply. (Think The Prodigal Son)

Why wouldn't you choose that? I'm just trying to understand why any good person wouldn't.

(Anyone else can answer this hypothetical as well)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now liberally insert 'allegedly' or 'I speculate' or 'I read in a book' into your post, and you'll immediately clear the air of that lingering odor of dishonest assertion that always accompanies Christian talk of the afterlife.

I always assume that people write and say what they think and believe. I don't have to be told. Adding those particular qualifiers do not add anything to the root claim. If I say "I believe that motorcycles are dangerous." means no more and no less than when I say "motorcycles are dangerous."

I suppose one could nit-pick and say that the first sentence is self-referencial whereas the second has an external reference. It seems as if you are reading "dishonesty" into the statements made by Christians that you would not attribute to statements made during casual conversations.

As an interesting experiment, one I've done myself, try to go for a whole week without saying "I think..." before you say what you think. I came away with a greater awareness of how much time I spend talking about myself rather than listening to those of others..

[Amarok]

Because this hypothetical  is full of assumptions to even bother thinking about .