-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Choosing" to Go to Hell
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
"The Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us to brush her long, flowing mane and tail., etc, etc."Sunstone said:
If you don't hear the condescension in that, then you don't hear it. I don't know what I could say that would allow you or Spinks to understand how it feels from the perspective of those who love their god(s) if you can't already.
But no matter... I am out of line to expect that you might wish to do so.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Please, I'm not mocking anyone. This is a debate forum, and I am challenging the validity of an argument that *some* theists propose. In the debate forum, it is important to be able to distinguish between an attack on an argument and an attack on those who propose it. The purpose of the Invisible Pink Unicorn analogy was to allow believers to critically examine an argument from the perspective of a nonbeliever. If it sounded condescending I sincerely apologize--I was trying to make a point, one with which, I think, you agree.lilithu said:
If I correctly understand Spink's point, then it is this (stripped of the Invisible Pink Unicorn analogy): "In order to choose to go to hell, one must first believe in hell. For if one does not believe in hell, then how can one choose to go to hell." But to put his point like that looses some of the nuances. Especially, the nuance that belief in hell might not be a possibility for some people.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
I understand the perspective of a nonbeliever, Spinks. You think that God is a made up thing - a superfluous explanatory construct on the objective level and an emotional crutch on the personal level. You think that the argument that we can't objectively measure God is just a contortionist way to hold on to this emotional security blanket in the face of objective reality. Hence, the invisibleness of the pink unicorn. And you think that the only basis in reality is the material world. Hence the analogy to a magical, external, physical (but invisible) entity. And maybe you're right.Mr_Spinkles said:
But you could have gotten your point across just as effectively without refering to the invisible pink unicorn and especially without refering to brushing manes and tails and shoveling manure. In fact, I believe it would have been more effective had you not, since in general alienating your target audience is not conducive to getting them to try to see things from your perspective.
As I said, your argument is logically sound. If, in the unlikely event that it does turn out that there really is a supernatural being who demands worship in a particular way on pain of everlasting torment, I will be there in hell along with you. I'll buy you a beer.Mr_Spinkles said:
robtex
Veteran Member
Bad news. You can't buy him a beer. There is no happy hour in hell.lilithu said:
As I said, your argument is logically sound. If, in the unlikely event that it does turn out that there really is a supernatural being who demands worship in a particular way on pain of everlasting torment, I will be there in hell along with you. I'll buy you a beer.
seraphimfire
Member
Here we go again with the doctrine that hell is endless and those folks who feel completly clueless find themeselves in hell for eternity wanting a beer!The violence of an eternal place of no return seems so unthinkable to many minds and thoughts of helplessness can cause such humour! Again we have folks of a different religion challenging a doctrine of Rome and wondering about the responces! Well, (deep subject) If you are oblivious to the Christain doctrines I would say that if you want to not believe on Christ Jesus and go your way. Who's to say you won't get struck down as Paul/Saul the Apostle on the road to kill Christians and other heritics and in the twinkling of an eye have a spiritual meeting with the Man himself(Jesus)!?
It may not be a choice! If you don't get struck down and you continue in your
own belief system and you die leaving your ashes in the earth and your spirit comes before the living God who is Fire (a spiritual fire like nothing known on earth) you will be in a place that's "hell" to you! A world of light and no darkness at all! Everything you are will be exposed! All that's not of Him will be burnt up and you purified but how long and what is the burning like?
I havn't been there and I don't want to be in that condition!
I agree with NOS but that's amazing cause I never heard an Orthodox Eastern or Roman speak of Hell and God that way, not very Dantaish!
Anyway, Choose away!
Seraph
It may not be a choice! If you don't get struck down and you continue in your
own belief system and you die leaving your ashes in the earth and your spirit comes before the living God who is Fire (a spiritual fire like nothing known on earth) you will be in a place that's "hell" to you! A world of light and no darkness at all! Everything you are will be exposed! All that's not of Him will be burnt up and you purified but how long and what is the burning like?
I havn't been there and I don't want to be in that condition!
I agree with NOS but that's amazing cause I never heard an Orthodox Eastern or Roman speak of Hell and God that way, not very Dantaish!
Anyway, Choose away!
Seraph
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It was a joke, in order to lighten the mood, to convey that there are no hard feelings between me and Spinks. That was all it was for. I do not feel helpless about endless damnation because I do not believe in it.seraphimfire said:
Who's to say indeed! We should only be so lucky as Paul was.seraphimfire said:
The implication of my beer joke was that if such a thing happens, I'll accept responsibility for my choices and take my lumps stoically without complaint - whether it's until I am purified or for eternity. I decided back in high school that's what I would do, even when I believed in lakes of fire, etc. All the better for me now that I don't.seraphimfire said:
Yes, well No*s is pretty amazing.seraphimfire said:
Do you mean Dante-ish? You do realize, right, that Dante's Divine Comedy can be read as allegorical?seraphimfire said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Thanks, but I'm satisfied with how it turned out.lilithu said:
Hehe, toss me and Satan a Mich ultra! :woohoo:lilithu said:
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
MMmmm.... *Homer-voice* Infernal danish.... *holding a strawberry daquari (sp?) asks Spinks if she can join he, Satan and Her Holiness*lilithu said:
No*s
Captain Obvious
seraphimfire said:
Then you haven't talked to many Orthodox
. It's actually a standard belief that God is Hell, and that if we go unprepared, we will not like that eternity. The best article I know of, though, is quite anti-Roman Catholic and anti-Protestant with very strong rhetoric, or I would have posted it.lilithu said:Yes, well No*s is pretty amazing.
Aw, tanks Lilithu
. Believe me the feeling is mutual.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Spinks, I was preoccupied with the shoveling unicorn manure thing and didn't notice this earlier. While I concur with the main gist of your argument, I am not sure about this assertion:
I suppose that it depends on how one defines freedom. Another way to look at it is that knowledge constrains freedom. If one knows the conesequences of one's actions, one cannot choose completely freely. Socrates believed that there is no sin, only ignorance. Thus absolute knowledge would indeed negate free choice. If one had perfect knowledge one would always do what was right. Buddhism suggests something similar.
So getting back to your argument, I suppose that it's not the punishment/reward that constrains free choice but the knowledge of inevitable punishment/reward as a consequence of one's choice. Since you do not believe, then you have no such "knowledge" of the consequences and thus are free to choose, even tho for you there is nothing to choose. Whereas if you do believe, then you theoretically are constrained to choose to obey the unicorn.
All of this is my convoluted way of saying that point 2 does not go with point 1. It's truth or falsity depends on the existence, or the belief in the existence, of said unicorn, whereas point 1's truth or falsity is independant of either. I think you should have stopped at point 1.
First off, like No*s, I do not believe in the reward/punishment model. But even if it were the case, I'm not sure that you can say that free choice is negated. Constrained maybe but not negated. We don't need the afterlife to test this theory. If I shoot someone in cold blood in front of a room full of witnesses I will be punished for this action. That is the consequence of the action. But it does not negate my ability to choose freely whether to shoot or not, does it?Mr_Spinkles said:
I suppose that it depends on how one defines freedom. Another way to look at it is that knowledge constrains freedom. If one knows the conesequences of one's actions, one cannot choose completely freely. Socrates believed that there is no sin, only ignorance. Thus absolute knowledge would indeed negate free choice. If one had perfect knowledge one would always do what was right. Buddhism suggests something similar.
So getting back to your argument, I suppose that it's not the punishment/reward that constrains free choice but the knowledge of inevitable punishment/reward as a consequence of one's choice. Since you do not believe, then you have no such "knowledge" of the consequences and thus are free to choose, even tho for you there is nothing to choose. Whereas if you do believe, then you theoretically are constrained to choose to obey the unicorn.
All of this is my convoluted way of saying that point 2 does not go with point 1. It's truth or falsity depends on the existence, or the belief in the existence, of said unicorn, whereas point 1's truth or falsity is independant of either. I think you should have stopped at point 1.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I completely agree. The reason I included both points 1 and 2 is because I am addressing both believers and nonbelievers, and I'm trying to show that whether or not you believe, the "choosing to go to hell" argument doesn't make much sense.lilithu said:
Once again, thanks, but I'm satisfied with how it turned out.lilithu said:
