"Choosing" to Go to Hell

[Mr Spinkles]

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us to brush her long, flowing mane and tail. But she wants us to brush her hair because we want to, not because we've been forced to. Her holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn let's us choose whether we want to live in bliss brushing her hair or suffer eternal damnation shoveling her manure in the afterlife. It's up to us to choose. People who choose not to believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have made their choice, and with a heavy heart, she will respect their decision."

Arguments of the same vein coming from theists sound every bit as silly, and here's why:

1) A nonbeliever cannot "choose" to be apart or against something whose existence he/she disputes. Only those who believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in the first place can make a decision as to their loyalty to her.
2) "Free choice" is negated by offering reward in the afterlife for obedience and punishment for disobedience.

Still, even thoughI have no reason to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, I go around saying she does, just in case. After all, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in her!

 

[Lightkeeper]

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn wants us to brush her long, flowing mane and tail. But she wants us to brush her hair because we want to, not because we've been forced to. Her holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn let's us choose whether we want to live in bliss brushing her hair or suffer eternal damnation shoveling her manure in the afterlife. It's up to us to choose. People who choose not to believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have made their choice, and with a heavy heart, she will respect their decision."

Arguments of the same vein coming from theists sound every bit as silly, and here's why:

1) A nonbeliever cannot "choose" to be apart or against something whose existence he/she disputes. Only those who believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in the first place can make a decision as to their loyalty to her.
2) "Free choice" is negated by offering reward in the afterlife for obedience and punishment for disobedience.

Still, even thoughI have no reason to believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, I go around saying she does, just in case. After all, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in her!

You assume that there is only one right way to think and go through life.

 

[Ronald]

Mocking God, will not look good on your resume'! Undoubtably, you do not fear God!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You assume that there is only one right way to think and go through life.

I don't understand. Could you explain what you mean here?

 

[robtex]

Wow good stuff. Great points. Frubars for that post. I think I just had a similar experince online chatting with a writer friend of mine two days ago. Somehow religion came up and I told her I was an atheist (but not that I just converted) and she said, "Wow" " I didn't know that" "interesting" "Whatever makes you happy",

It isn't about what makes one happy ,sad, glad or mad. just a preception of reality that points away from a divine prescence. Truth be told a gracious loving God watching over us sounds like a great deal and if were completly up to me I would vote yes without a second delay. But it isn't a vote. And like you pointed out Spinkles, belief isn't a choice it is a realization independant of wants and desires.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mocking God, will not look good on your resume'! Undoubtably, you do not fear God!

Ronald, I can no more mock God than you can mock the Invisible Pink Unicorn. One can neither mock nor fear that which they do not believe exists.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Truth be told a gracious loving God watching over us sounds like a great deal and if were completly up to me I would vote yes without a second delay. But it isn't a vote. And like you pointed out Spinkles, belief isn't a choice it is a realization independant of wants and desires.

Exactly my point! I would have given you frubals for this, but I have to "spread them around" some more.

 

[Ronald]

I knew that, Mr_Spinkles, my post was for God fearers.

Make sure you don't immulate, Mr_Spinkles!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You assume that there is only one right way to think and go through life.

Lightkeeper, did this have something to do with my post, or was this just about me in general?

 

[No*s]

Good post Spinks. It proposes a valid problem, which, I don't think I have a good solution for, to be completely honest . I may as well admit that going in.

Hell is punishment, but IMO, it's not a place but a state *draws on Tradition with hope *. God is Hell, and no matter what, we must face Him in the afterlife. It's a matter of how we stand in relation to Him. Thus, we aren't placed in a pit of fire, assigned jobs that are annoying, or anything of the sort. We simply meet God. Period.

Take a fire. Traditionally, fire is used as a metaphor for our experiences with God. The fire is neutral. It is what it is. One thing, when placed in the fire, is consumed and burned. Another thing absorbs the heat and works quite well, kind of like comparing iron and wood. Another is the person sitting by the fireplace is comforted, while the guy who wanders into it is burned .

It also means that it's not a matter of choice, per se, that God is threatening unbelievers lest he smite them, but simply a statement of nature. God simply is. We believe that we've received (obviously, from revelation) a way to change how we relate to it like as we change our relationship to fire.

The proposition of Christianity (assuming a God here) is that it has a way to transform us from wood into iron so that we can withstand God. It's not so much a threat, though it is sadly used that way, as a simple statement of how we view our relationship to God, from an Orthodox perspective that is.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I knew that, Mr_Spinkles, my post was for God fearers.

Make sure you don't immulate, Mr_Spinkles!

Set fire to him? No, I don't think anyone is planning to, but thanks for the reminder.

Or did you mean emulate?

" People who choose not to believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have made their choice, and with a heavy heart, she will respect their decision."

Not everyone who is a theist thinks that their version of divinity asks others to believe/ convert to them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hell is punishment

It also means that it's not a matter of choice, per se, that God is threatening unbelievers lest he smite them, but simply a statement of nature. God simply is. We believe that we've received (obviously, from revelation) a way to change how we relate to it like as we change our relationship to fire.

Putting aside, for the moment, how in the world a fire can be said to "punish" anyone, I think we agree that this is not a free choice.

My point in the original post, No*s, was that belief in [X] is required before one can decide whether or not to obey [X] or whether or not to freely choose to love [X]. Nonbelievers cannot be classified as loyal, disloyal, loving or hateful towards [X].

Try replacing the word "God" in your last post with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Do you think it would make sense for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to punish you in the afterlife for not obeying her, when she hadn't even made her existence or wishes known to you? Perhaps more importantly, if an Invisible Pink Unicorn believer told you you would be shoveling the IPU's holy manure for eternity because of your own free choice, would you take that argument seriously? Remember, I'm not attacking all of theism here, just this particular argument.

 

[skyglass]

I have no reason to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, but I do have reason to believe that God exist.

 

[Pah]

I knew that, Mr_Spinkles, my post was for God fearers.

Make sure you don't immulate, Mr_Spinkles!

Mr_Spinkles is not alone in her holiness's stable. There is a "rightness" in numbers.

 

[No*s]

Putting aside, for the moment, how in the world a fire can be said to "punish" anyone, I think we agree that this is not a free choice.

My point in the original post, No*s, was that belief in [X] is required before one can decide whether or not to obey [X] or whether or not to freely choose to love [X]. Nonbelievers cannot be classified as loyal, disloyal, loving or hateful towards [X].

Try replacing the word "God" in your last post with "the Invisible Pink Unicorn". Do you think it would make sense for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to punish you in the afterlife for not obeying her, when she hadn't even made her existence or wishes known to you? Perhaps more importantly, if an Invisible Pink Unicorn believer told you you would be shoveling the IPU's holy manure for eternity because of your own free choice, would you take that argument seriously? Remember, I'm not attacking all of theism here, just this particular argument.

Nope, but then, I can't see a unicorn as invisible and pink .

I apologize for misunderstanding. I thought it was a broad attack on Hell. Instead, it's a deal about God arbitrarily punishing anyone who doesn't believe regardless of revelation. That was a misunderstanding on my part.

While I definately believe in Hell, I don't make it simply a bit of "Agree with us or be punished," so I'll let them make their arguments. Sorry again for the misunderstanding .

 

[Ronald]

Mr_Spinkles is not alone in her holiness's stable. There is a "rightness" in numbers.

I seem to remember many times, that Pah finds fault with those who profess a "rightness" in numbers, does this mean Pah is changing sides?

 

[Ceridwen018]

While I definately believe in Hell, I don't make it simply a bit of "Agree with us or be punished,"

What do you make it, No*s? Does your god allow people into heaven who don't believe in him?

 

[No*s]

What do you make it, No*s? Does your god allow people into heaven who don't believe in him?

The answer to that is "I don't know." I'm not going to guess the fate of other people. I simply affirm that I believe there's a problem, what I believe to be a problem, and that hopes outside of it aren't sanguine. I don't think of it as "punishment" in the sense of "You broke a rule, so you're getting punished unless you do X." Basically, I think of God as Heaven and God as Hell, and I believe Orthodoxy has a solution.

Basically, in the one Spinks specified, "The judge has held me guilty and cast me into prison, simply because I refused a summons. I didn't know there was a summons..." In Orthodoxy it's more like, "I'm lying sick in bed, and I need the doctor with a cure." If one doesn't have the right cure, or get someone who isn't a doctor, the illness will run its natural course. In this case we die and go on unprepared. Spinks' question specifically polls a juridical style punishment like the former. Orthodoxy doesn't teach that.

 

[robtex]

The answer to that is "I don't know." I'm not going to guess the fate of other people. .

No relate the question to you than and tell us if you think what applies to you in the eyes of God applies to others..why or why not?

 

[No*s]

No relate the question to you than and tell us if you think what applies to you in the eyes of God applies to others..why or why not?

Yes. Absolutely. I don't see why I would be different, and since I believe that we all will experience God, I firmly believe that is the case for me. The qualitative difference is how will we experience Him. One person experiences Him as pain and another as peace.

What I believe makes the difference is the grace inside the Church, the Eucharist, etc. which can graft us in. That's the only qualitative difference I hold from others. In fact, I've not been able to be baptized into the Church...therefore I'm potentially in the same boat as everyone else.

Why do I hold it? You can probably guess . Simply because I believe Christianity. If I didn't, then I wouldn't affirm the preceding. I simply wouldn't believe I had a source of knowledge on the issue.