Hell

Originally posted by whodey
Here is a brain teaser for everyone. Who, if anyone, deserves a fate of eternal damnation?

I know a few ide send, but the likes of hitler and the Z/Z come to mind, but its not for me to judge, whom the living god leaves out of his love.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is a brain teaser for everyone. Who, if anyone, deserves a fate of eternal damnation?

No one of course.

The rishis of the Upanishads were not impressed by the theory of eternal retribution in heaven or hell. That theory reveals a total disproportion between cause and effect. Life on earth is short, exposed to error, and bristling with temptations. Many of our wrong actions are the result of faulty upbringing and environment. To inflict upon the soul eternal punishment for the errors of a few years, or even of a whole lifetime, is to throw to the winds all sense of proportion. It is also inconsistent with God's love for His created beings.

Swami Nikhilananda
Discussion of Brahman, p. 96 of the Upanishads, 1949 edition

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one of course.

The rishis of the Upanishads were not impressed by the theory of eternal retribution in heaven or hell. That theory reveals a total disproportion between cause and effect. Life on earth is short, exposed to error, and bristling with temptations. Many of our wrong actions are the result of faulty upbringing and environment. T ...[text shortened]... ted beings.

Swami Nikhilananda
Discussion of Brahman, p. 96 of the Upanishads, 1949 edition

well put, and more or less the point I thought I was making (though you made it better)

Originally posted by no1marauder
To inflict upon the soul eternal punishment for the errors of a few years, or even of a whole lifetime, is to throw to the winds all sense of proportion. It is also inconsistent with God's love for His created beings.

Swami Nikhilananda
Discussion of Brahman, p. 96 of the Upanishads, 1949 edition[/b]

So what about temperal punishment? Is this inconsistent with God's love for his created beings?

Originally posted by whodey
So what about temperal punishment? Is this inconsistent with God's love for his created beings?

It depends on the purpose of the punishment. I personally believe that punishment is only loving and just if its sole purpose is to correct wayward behavior. If it is about revenge / retribution then it is not loving or just.
I believe that the concept of God sending people to hell is neither loving nor just.

As for whether something is inconsistent with Gods love, well that depends on Gods love doesn't it. If the Bible and you are to be believed then God isn't particularly loving at all but I am sure that doesn't bother you as you will simply redefine the word 'love' to suit God.

Originally posted by whodey
So what about temperal punishment? Is this inconsistent with God's love for his created beings?

I didn't think non-Catholics believed in temporal punishment. Such punishment can't be eternal of course as it must be only to repair the damage done by the sin itself. So I'm not sure it has anything to do with the concept of Hell, though it might be an interesting separate discussion.

EDIT: Of course, the idea of temporal punishment is closely related to the concept of Purgatory. From newadvent:

Temporal Punishment
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on the purpose of the punishment. I personally believe that punishment is only loving and just if its sole purpose is to correct wayward behavior. If it is about revenge / retribution then it is not loving or just.
I believe that the concept of God sending people to hell is neither loving nor just.

As for whether something is inconsistent w I am sure that doesn't bother you as you will simply redefine the word 'love' to suit God.

I would just like to point out the apparent contradiction of a God who both punishes and loves. It would seem the longer the punishment or the more sever the punishment the more unjust it is percieved to be. However, we are in agreement that both punishment and love are compatible, or at least on some level. To what level is then subjective and speculative. No doubt it is a complex issue and for one I do not have all the answers.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I didn't think non-Catholics believed in temporal punishment. Such punishment can't be eternal of course as it must be only to repair the damage done by the sin itself. So I'm not sure it has anything to do with the concept of Hell, though it might be an interesting separate discussion.

EDIT: Of course, the idea of temporal punishment is closely relat and so not be cast off eternally from God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

But your examples of temperal punishments have eternal consequences. For example, the consequences for David sinning involved the fate of his own sons. At times our sins effect those who are "innocent". Also, David was effected for the rest of his life with the subsequent demise of his sons for the rest of his life and into the next life. You might even say that our "hell" begins on earth as a result of our sins and others sins. This "hell" is then continued into the next life unless God is able to intervene in some way in our present life and/or in the life to come.

Originally posted by whodey
But your examples of temperal punishments have eternal consequences. For example, the consequences for David sinning involved the fate of his own sons. At times our sins effect those who are "innocent". Also, David was effected for the rest of his life with the subsequent demise of his sons for the rest of his life and into the next life. You might even s ...[text shortened]... nless God is able to intervene in some way in our present life and/or in the life to come.

Sounds like Karma and Reincarnation.

PS-Punishment for a few generations does not equal eternal punishment; it's still temporal.

But, I find both Hell and Bad Karma tools used to motivate humans into "doing the right thing". I do not think the "right thing" requires a negative motivator essentially the equivalent of a holy spanking.

If you love yourself and your fellow human you will always do the right thing at the right time. The goal (dualistic thinking I know) is to transcend suffering and that will not happening until you stop running from fear of suffering (hell or reincarnation as a lesser life form).

Originally posted by whodey
But your examples of temperal punishments have eternal consequences. For example, the consequences for David sinning involved the fate of his own sons. At times our sins effect those who are "innocent". Also, David was effected for the rest of his life with the subsequent demise of his sons for the rest of his life and into the next life. You might even s ...[text shortened]... nless God is able to intervene in some way in our present life and/or in the life to come.

No, the consequences weren't "eternal". And you're using the Fallacy of Equivocation again: Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment - and Earth doesn't qualify. And sin in Christian doctrine is merely disobedience to what God wants us to do. So because we don't do what God wants, he reserves the right to eternally punish us, but wants kudos for his wonderful mercy if he decides to spare a few who sufficiently grovel before him. Again this God of yours sounds like a psychotic.

Originally posted by mdhall
Sounds like Karma and Reincarnation.

PS-Punishment for a few generations does not equal eternal punishment; it's still temporal.

But, I find both Hell and Bad Karma tools used to motivate humans into "doing the right thing". I do not think the "right thing" requires a negative motivator essentially the equivalent of a holy spanking.

If you love your ...[text shortened]... ntil you stop running from fear of suffering (hell or reincarnation as a lesser life form).

Karma, bad or otherwise, is not meant to motivate humans to do anything. It is a law of nature; the law of gravity doesn't "motivate" objects to be attracted to one another - they operate on objects regardless of what the objects desire. The Laws of Karma operate similarly.

Of course, in the Hinduism of the Upanishads, Karma and the doctrine of rebirth operate in the universe of maya and are illusionary. There is only the one without a second.

EDIT: The Buddhist take on Karma:

Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Theists, who attempt to explain everything in this and temporal life and in the eternal future life, ignoring a past, believe in a ‘postmortem’ justice, and may regard present happiness and misery as blessings and curses conferred on His creation by an omniscient and omnipotent Divine Ruler who sits in heaven above controlling the destinies of the human race. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

Originally posted by mdhall
Sounds like Karma and Reincarnation.

PS-Punishment for a few generations does not equal eternal punishment; it's still temporal.

But, I find both Hell and Bad Karma tools used to motivate humans into "doing the right thing". I do not think the "right thing" requires a negative motivator essentially the equivalent of a holy spanking.

If you love your ...[text shortened]... ntil you stop running from fear of suffering (hell or reincarnation as a lesser life form).

Do you think that having tools to help us "do the right thing" is good? Is it necessary? Is it loving?

You said something interesting. "The goal is to transcend suffering and that will not happen until you stop running from fear and suffering." Is this not then understandable that faith is such an intergral teaching within Christianity/Judism? Is this how Christ and others that followed after him were able to look into the eyes of death and martyrdom?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Karma, bad or otherwise, is not meant to motivate humans to do anything. It is a law of nature; the law of gravity doesn't "motivate" objects to be attracted to one another - they operate on objects regardless of what the objects desire. The Laws of Karma operate similarly.

Of course, in the Hinduism of the Upanishads, Karma and the doctrin ...[text shortened]... operate in the universe of maya and are illusionary. There is only the one without a second.

Karma is not "meant" to motivate? By whom or what? Obviosly it does motivate so the question must be asked, why?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, the consequences weren't "eternal". And you're using the Fallacy of Equivocation again: Hell was defined as a place of eternal punishment - and Earth doesn't qualify. And sin in Christian doctrine is merely disobedience to what God wants us to do. So because we don't do what God wants, he reserves the right to eternally punish us, but wants kudos for ...[text shortened]... a few who sufficiently grovel before him. Again this God of yours sounds like a psychotic.

But if what God wants is best for us because he loves us then going against what he tells us to do is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot leading us to suffering/hell. Therein lies the delimma. He loves us and wants what is best for us, therefore, he motivates us "to do the right thing". If he forced us to do the right thing then love is not part of the equation becuase a mutually loving relationship requires free will. If, on the other hand, he ignores our self destructive ways then he would be indifferent and not loving.

Originally posted by whodey
Karma is not "meant" to motivate? By whom or what? Obviosly it does motivate so the question must be asked, why?

By nobody; what part of a "natural law requires no lawgiver" don't you understand? And why is a meaningless question when you refer to natural laws; why does E=MC squared?