The Inferno
discussion
The Hitler button
date
newest »
newest »
I can't answer the question. I am a Buddhist and my sect believes hell is on earth. But, I think , quite honestly that Hitler should return to life as one of his inmates in the concentration camps. That he could undergo what all those people did would be better than the fires of hell.
I tempted to agree with you. This would of course be a finite punishment. I must confess I can't see how anyone could deserve an infinite duration of torture, not even Hitler.
I don't believe you should go to hell. I am curious what you think will happen to you after you die. I do believe in a heaven and hell because then what is the purpose of trying to lead a good life here on earth if when you die there will be no consequence for your actions. What exactly heaven or hell will be like is different for every individual, since no one has come back to let us know what either is like. Christopher, are you curious just based on the fact that you are an atheist or you just want to know in general?
I'm glad to hear you don't think I should burn forever.Licha wrote: "I do believe in a heaven and hell because then what is the purpose of trying to lead a good life here on earth if when you die there will be no consequence for your actions..."
I can't understand how you can seriously say that if there is no heaven or hell you see no good reason to try and live a good life. Is the only thing preventing you from raping and pillaging the fear that you would go to hell? If this is truly the case then I can easily make the claim that I am more moral than you.
I must say I don't really think you believe this. If it were proved beyond reproach that there was no heaven or hell I don't think you would go around feeling perfectly free to hurt people.
Christopher wrote: "I tempted to agree with you. This would of course be a finite punishment. I must confess I can't see how anyone could deserve an infinite duration of torture, not even Hitler."yeah, I agree with this...I sometimes think about it as similar to punishing an infant for the rest of his/her life for something that he/she did in the first hour of life...just doesn't seem fair.
Interesting topic... I believe that how a person lives their life, whether for good or ill, determines how they exist in the afterlife. I can honestly say I don't know exactly WHAT I believe as far as heaven/hell goes. Hitler was a bad, bad man. He deserves punishment, to be sure. But as far as homosexuality, atheism, etc. goes... I don't think that that warrants say, hell. As long as someone lives their life in the best way they can, trying not to hurt others, trying to make good choices (I say trying, because NO ONE is perfect, after all), then that deserves a peaceful afterlife, doesn't it? What do I know, though? At this point all we can do is wonder, right?
Sorry, maybe I didn't thouroughly explain myself. I still stand by what I said as far as my belief of a heaven and a hell, but I don't necessarily hold this to be the only reason why all people try be good. That is just part of my faith as much as it's not maybe something you adhere to being an atheist. It's not to say you are wrong or that you being an atheist makes you an immoral person. If I gave that impression, I apologize. It was not my intention at all. I was actually curious about why you were asking if people believed you would burn in hell and why you were asking. I do believe that majority of people are good overall, regardless of their beliefs or lifestyles. This is one of those questions that we will never have an answer for. I totally agree with you on the fact that regardless of a heaven or a hell, we should all try to lead a good life and be moral, upstanding citizens. Without rules or laws, we'd all live in chaos. But this brings up a point, don't you think then that to a certain extent, even if it's not a fear of going to hell, we try to do the right thing because we're afraid of going to jail, or because we're afraid of getting punished by our parents, or fired from our work? Maybe subconsciously, we all have a reason to be good. These are questions humanity has been pondering forever. I would still love to hear what your answer was to my previous questions.
I have posted this and other questions mainly out of curiosity. For example Richard Dawkins receives mail on a regular basis telling him that he will burn forever in hell. I am trying to get an impression of whether this is a fringe belief among christians or a widely held belief. It certainly was widely held by christians in the past, but each generation of christians is slightly more liberal than the last. Licha wrote: "But this brings up a point, don't you think then that to a certain extent, even if it's not a fear of going to hell, we try to do the right thing because we're afraid of going to jail, or because we're afraid of getting punished by our parents, or fired from our work?..."
The threat of going to prison is certainly a deterrent. But this is a very different type of punishment than burning in hell forever. Moreover no one should be proud of the fact that they refrain from murder simply because they would find it inconvenient to go to prison. And if anyone made such a claim I would insist that I am a bit more moral than they are.
Christopher wrote: "I have posted this and other questions mainly out of curiosity. For example Richard Dawkins receives mail on a regular basis telling him that he will burn forever in hell. I am trying to get an imp..."I have certain beliefs that have been ingrained in me since I can remember so I'm sure a lot of my beliefs and actions are based on that. But I also don't think that I am so black and white with my views. I would like to think that I try to be fair in my assessment of different views. I'm not sure who Richard Dawkins is but it's sad that people who think they are so moral would find it ok to be so hard on another person because of his views. And to add my opinion to your quest: I do think that Christians are more likely to believe certain people shuuld go to hell. It all boils down to religious belief.
Richard Dawkins is a prominent evolutionary biologist and atheist.
Christopher wrote: "Richard Dawkins is a prominent evolutionary biologist and atheist."It doesn't surprise me Dawkins gets these reactions. Anytime someone goes outside the accepted norms people will be quick with the backlash. It's not ok, but also not surpising.
I don't think i asked you before, but what do you think will happen after you die? Do you think you will just cease to exist? And on what do you base your answer? These question are with all due respect and curiosity?
I assume I will cease to exist, although science does provide some possibilities that there are other versions of me that would go on living.
Regardless of one's religion or lack of, no human being should judge another and condemn them to an afterlife of eternal pain or pleasure. I am an agnostic and accept that there is so little that we human beings don't know. I love Dawkins and Hitchens.
www.nineteenreviews.blogspot.com
If supposedly you were strapped to said table, and I was in charge of pressing the button, I would TOTALLY do it. Nothing against you and your beliefs (whether or not I agree) -- It's merely a matter of logic:1.) If we're in Hell, then Hell does exist.
2.) If you're strapped to a table to be punished, you were wrong.
3.) If I'm supposed to hit the button because you are wrong... Then punishment is entirely deserved.
Am I wrong? It's not to say that I would want to do this. It just seems like the logical choice.
I think you need two buttons.The Hitler button and The Annihilation button.
I do not believe in torture and only God is capable of perfect judgment.
We are not in Hell...or Heaven yet.
We are on earth...perhaps experiencing a little of both.
To Bonita:We are on earth...perhaps experiencing a little of both.
I can agree with your statement.
Frankly, I don't think it would be for me to decide. I'd leave it to God. Judging is something I (like everybody else) struggle with on a day to day basis, and I try to catch myself and stop doing it. It's difficult, because it's human nature, but I also know it's not my place to determine these things. And that's good, because I certainly don't want the place of God. The whole concept of hell and who goes and who doesn't still jumbles my brain a bit. That's one of the "beyond me" things. Free will can put you in a paradoxical circle that'll twist your brain in knots!
To anyone who would press the button, I'd ask if they still would if doing so meant they were bound to oversee the infinite punishment, to be responsible for the punishment for its duration.
Consequence seems to accompany it's action and not revisit it at a later time.
It's a hypothetical, so we can posit any stipulations regardless of what consequence normally seems to do. So, I guess I'm asking 'If you had to accompany the action throughout, if the action could not be undertaken or executed otherwise, would you?' (Or maybe I misunderstand your remark.)
Well, that sounds like a punishment to me. Having to stay torturing someone indefinitely . If I was one person on a long line of circumstance, then I guess it wouldn't be anything that could be helped and I would press it; but just asking if I would torture someone because of sins they've committed without my judging them first - I wouldn't do it.
It's an interesting dilemma: if a person actually feels that infinite torture is not merely an acceptable punishment, but the 'right thing to do', then why would they not be willing to enact it entirely? Would their hesitation to commit to such a task be an indication that there is not only a moral question but also an economic question involved? If we 'leave it up to God,' our hands are washed; but if God is removed from the scenario, and it is up to the individual to take his place (even in this one capacity), most people (believers and non-believers) wouldn't, I'd wager. Of course, in this scenario, many would probably be willing to settle for a death penalty instead: a final, if not infinite, punishment. EDIT --- But if you believe in the afterlife, what good would killing someone do if they just get to go to Heaven anyway? It would remove the person from the Earth, but, in the big scheme, it'd be a vain gesture.
I think the whole idea of comparing the two (how else?) separately is moot. What righteous human would spend their eternity punishing the evil? That isn't what ascended people tend to do- they lounge and sing hymns or visit relatives on earth or whatever. What angels spend their existence torturing their failed comrades(or enemies) from life before divinity?
If I've misunderstood try again to explain instead of writing me off, please? Edit: I was just trying to relate the choice of doing the damage or not in both extreme cases y'know?
[No offense meant. I thought you were being flip.] You suppose the set of activities in which people in heaven engage excludes what I am supposing: that a person (living or after-living) could be presented with a choice of whether or not make a commitment to execute eternal punishment on someone else. You could be right, but I think that (for the purposes of argument) such a position is outside the scope of the question (which may itself be unrealistic).
Also, I'm not clear on what 'two' being compared is 'moot'.
Two and moot was a precursor sorry. Two being the difference of being there stuck permanently, or being another facet to what I was picturing the afterlife as being. You're right about me not being actually on the point sorry. I'm creating circumstances. But I can see your point, and it seems to be in step with thought being the forerunner of action/responsibility.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
If you believe in hell do you believe it will consist of maximum torture for an infinite duration, or will it be something less severe than this?
What if the person strapped to the maximum torture device is a homosexual or an atheist? Would you press the button then?
As an atheist who faces this remote prospect I am curious how many people really believe I should burn forever.