# The implications of hell. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904 "2014-12-22T13:07:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/81 "2014-12-24T06:07:23Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I made this point to some degree, but to clarify the point: > > When dealing with a religion that deals with a judgement, and an afterlife with infinite reward vs infinite punishment, the most religious people are the most sane of the religious people. Your beliefs are extreme - your time on Earth is nothing compared to your time in eternity. Your entire life should be lived doing everything you possibly can to ensure that you pass god’s test. You should be fully justified - and not only that, obligated - to carry out what you thought to be your god’s commands with every waking thought and every waking moment. > > The moderately religious are far less sane. They acknowledge the stakes, and yet act as if they aren’t a big deal. This is a course of action that is simply not based in logic or sanity and is incredibly risky and callous. > > So those annoying, very religious people who won’t stop hassling you about trying to save you? You should probably be grateful, their heart is in the right place, they’re trying to do the kindest thing for you that they can. Conversely, people who should care about you, and who have these beliefs, making a mere token effort to save you if at all? You should wonder why they hold the possibility of you being tortured eternally in such disregard. > > And if you are a person who’s reading this who holds such beliefs, why are you not incredibly anguished with the knowledge of so much suffering going on right now and forever? Why aren’t you spending your life doing everything you can to save anyone you can? The OP was stating heaven or hell varies by different religions view points so what is right and what is wrong. Same thing when you through in the bible. Not to say interpretation and meaning of the bible. Some religion do not subscribe to hell or even hell and heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/82 "2014-12-24T06:42:11Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What does the term ‘choose not to believe’ actually mean? Could you choose not to believe something? How? There’s a thread on this in the IMHO forum; there is a view held there, which I share, that, yes, if someone really wants, he can influence his own beliefs. I do acknowledge the other viewpoint, held by many, that no one can “choose” what to believe or disbelieve. But my opinion is that, if I seriously wanted to, I could believe just about anything I set my mind to. Obviously, this isn’t something very often practiced… > [@Sitnam](#): > > Why? What is self-contradictory about the statement ‘God has the power to do whatever he desires’? The self-contradiction comes when the word “infinite” is used as if it were an actual number. God can “lift an infinite weight,” for example. This is functional nonsense, as there is no “infinite weight.” A massively powerful God might be able to juggle 10^800 galaxies. He might be able to juggle 10^10^800 galaxies (although where he would find such a collection, no one can know.) But he cannot juggle an “infinite” number of galaxies, as the term is meaningless. “God is infinite” is, as **Max the Immortal** pointed out, a childish and empty boast, a schoolyard slogan, having no meaning and an example of serious ignorance of the real mathematical definition of infinity. The same is true for omniscience. A number of theologians have backed away from claims of literal omniscience, and have invented a category called “[inherent omniscience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience).” This is, of course, typical angel-counting, and a sign that theology is a wholly empty field of discourse, in which anyone can make up any old shit they want and call it divine truth. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/83 "2014-12-24T07:52:12Z")
> [@glee](#): > > I’ve asked several devout Christians (including a Chaplain i.e. English Priest) what would happen in these two situations: > > - genocidal maniac genuinely converts to Christianity on his death-bed > - pleasant atheist dies (denying Jesus as there’s no evidence of God) > > According to all of them, the genocidal maniac goes straight to Heaven and the pleasant atheist goes straight to Hell. > Apparently it’s not about your deeds, but whether you truly believe in God. > > Wow. :smack: As I understand it, this is close but not 100% correct. A good friend of mine was raised Methodist, and when I asked him what was different about the Methodist church from other Christian sects, he said that part of it was their belief that as long as you had accepted Jesus as your saviour and lord, you went to heaven. Didn’t matter if it was Pol Pot or Stalin or your grandmother, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour, they were going to heaven. ETA: Another friend of mine was Baptist, specifically Southern Baptist. When I asked her the same question, she said 1) they don’t dance and 2) they believe in a _just_ god, not a loving god. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/84 "2014-12-24T15:08:30Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Sin does cause you to go to hell. Reread what I wrote. I believe I said that sin, in itself, does not cause one to go to Hell. If it did, everyone would be on the first train to Hell when they die, given everyone sins. > [@](#): > > You’re born with original sin, and if you never hear the name Jesus Christ or any of his teaching, you’re fucked. This is the popular teaching among protestants, as I understand it, at least. Yup. > [@](#): > > Similarly, if you commit a sin and then die before you have any chance to repent, you’re fucked. Please, show me where this is in Christian doctrine. > [@](#): > > So while repentence can bring you back into approved status, it’s the sin that puts you into disapproval in the first place. That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t contradict anything I said. > [@](#): > > My statement about tempting someone into commiting sin is an aside, really - my post would be the same without it, it’s just an interesting consequence of those beliefs. Uh huh… > [@](#): > > Is this what you want to hang your hat on? Your conservative principles tell you that if you tempt someone into sin, and that gets them an unimaginably horrific punishment, well, you’re fine, fuck them. And if you could save someone from such a fate with a little effort, eh, fuck them, it’s on them. Got it. Just for the record, the above is a rather blatant straw man. Anywho… So you’re just going to gloss over the part where I pointed out to you that everyone is responsible for their own actions? I also guess you’re going to gloss over the parts of the Bible which clearly sys that if you lead someone astray, you will be judged for your actions? > [@](#): > > And yet prosetylization is a core philosophy of Christianity. One of the main tenets is that you get out there and spread the word of God so that others may be saved. Show me the parts of the Bible which commands one to beat a dead horse and continue prosetylizing to one who doesn’t wish to hear it. I can easily show you the latter. > [@](#): > > What are the chances you’d require to save someone to make it worth your time? If had a 99% chance to save someone from eternal damnation for 5 minutes of your time per day, would you do it? Or would you gleefully claim “haha, personal responsibility!” and not do so? The latter. But I’ll play your game. Let’s say I talk to someone and they decide they don’t want to hear it. Should I try a second time? Obviously, you’d say yes. How about a third? Or fourth? Or fifth? For whatever number you can throw out, there is always one number greater, which you’re well aware of. So, apparently, unless I’m going to attempt to try to change someone’s mind an infinite number of times, then somehow I don’t _really_ believe my faith. Needless to say, that’s asinine. > [@](#): > > If you’re willing to invest 5 minutes for a 99% of saving someone, what about an hour for a 50% chance? A week for a 25% chance? A year for a 5% chance? Is a year of your time worth the possibility of saving someone from eternal torment? How much of your time is worth potentially preventing suffering on a scale greater than the cumulative suffering of all of humanity? I like how you throw out random percentages. It really strengthens your argument. > [@](#): > > If I truly believed that others were condemned to eternal suffering, and that I had a chance to save them through my action, then if I did not spend every moment I had, trying everything possible, I would think I was a horrific human being. Since you looooooooove to throw out random percentages, what if you had exactly a zero percent chance to save them? (See! I can do it, too!) > [@](#): > > I haven’t misconstrued anything. Yes, you have. > [@](#): > > You have a belief system that says that people can suffer eternally, and that while you could potentially impact their chances, **you’ve washed your hands of even bothering…** Cite the post. > [@](#): > > …citing your conservative principle of personal responsibility. That I did. > [@](#): > > You sit by while innumerable people suffer the worst possible fate. I’m going to need a cite for this one as well. > [@](#): > > Because I don’t know the story of Paul and the Jews. Is the lesson to be learned “fuck it, give it a token effort, and if it doesn’t take, just relax while they suffer eternally”? If so, then Christian doctrine is either internally inconsistent, or callous to the suffering that god himself inflicts. And this is why I called the original post is a straw man. By your own admission, you don’t know Christian doctrine, yet feel compelled to write a thesis on Hell and lecture others for doing less than the absolute maximum. Then to cover yourself you turn around and claim that the Christian doctrine is “internally inconsistent” for not requiring Christians to do whatever you feel we should do, even though we’ve never been commanded to do so, and the Bible is replete with examples of people gong elsewhere when it becomes evident that others will not listen? …Yeah. Makes sense. Oh, and, it doesn’t matter how many times you ignore this, but everyone has free will and/or choice. I know is an inconvenient truth, but it’s a truth nonetheless. As everyone has free will, it’s your choice whether or not you end up in Hell. > [@](#): > > For the purposes of the thread, I’m assuming sincerity. My whole premise is “if you sincerely hold these beliefs, then…” and extrapolating the logical consequences of those beliefs. Your extrapolation leaves much to be desired. > [@](#): > > It’s not rigged. Let’s say I sincerely believed that eating cheese made your soul die, and that a mere shell of your old personality continued to animate your body, and that was the most horrible fate you could suffer. At the very least, you’d expect me to go out and tell everyone I knew not to eat cheese, and to try to get the message out there, right? And yet everyone would say “uh, ok dude, whatever, you’re crazy”. But if I truly believed that, and didn’t try to let anyone know, I would be a sociopath, or worse. You can simultaneously hold beliefs that other people find strange or distasteful, and feel that you’re annoying for raising them, but if you are a true believer, and you think you’re acting in their best interest, then you should try to convince them anyway. > > Of course the cheese example is absurd - but actual religious prosetylization has a lot of social pressure behind it, and a big history of success, as billions of adherents show. Prosetylization is clearly productive. > > So yes, religious people who try to push their beliefs on me are annoying. However, I’m always polite to them, and even thank them - I know that, deep down inside, they feel that they’re doing what’s best for me, even if I think that’s silly. On the other hand, if someone who claims to love me and feels that my soul is hellbound doesn’t do everything in their power to save me, they have shown the most grave disregard for my wellbeing. You know, your conclusion does not follow from your premise, correct? For example, a parent might love their child, but decide that if their child is content to live a dangerous life, that they have to let that child learn the hard way. Does that make them love their child any less than someone who spends every waking moment of every day trying to get that child to change? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/85 "2014-12-24T15:59:32Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know, your conclusion does not follow from your premise, correct? For example, a parent might love their child, but decide that if their child is content to live a dangerous life, that they have to let that child learn the hard way. Does that make them love their child any less than someone who spends every waking moment of every day trying to get that child to change? > > Of course not. Do you know the difference between letting a child learn the hard way, and letting a child suffer for all eternity? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/86 "2014-12-24T16:38:56Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You know, your conclusion does not follow from your premise, correct? For example, a parent might love their child, but decide that if their child is content to live a dangerous life, that they have to let that child learn the hard way. Does that make them love their child any less than someone who spends every waking moment of every day trying to get that child to change? > > Of course not. Any parent who would let their child “learn the hard way” when it comes to hell is a monster. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/87 "2014-12-24T16:50:15Z")
If you believe in Heaven and Hell, please tell me how it works when you are in Heaven and your loved one is in Hell? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/88 "2014-12-25T06:26:27Z")
It’s been a long time since I believed in a conscious, continuous, immortal soul. Looking back at it, I now think eternal hellfire is a silly idea. But it bugged me a lot when I was a kid. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/89 "2014-12-25T09:25:50Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Not all religions teach that there is a place of eternal suffering for those who fail to maintain their moral or religious obligations… Though eternal suffering has become the “traditional” Christian view, it is not necessarily Biblical sound. There is a movie about the evangelical Edward Fudge who studied the idea of hell for a year and found about 80 related verses and wrote some books: [http://www.hellandmrfudge.org/](http://www.hellandmrfudge.org/) This is a related site: > **[Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is...](https://jewishnotgreek.com/)** > > Why hell is destruction, not eternal torment. Absolute Biblical proof of conditional immortality. What was taught in the Old Testament? What did Judaism teach? In-depth discussion on Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, Traditionalism, and... > [@](#): > > Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught, Not What the Greek Philosophers Taught > > Why Tradition about the fate of the lost (as torment forever) is unbiblical and not hermeneutically correct. > > Why Conditional Immortality is absolutely true and all unsaved souls will one day be “destroyed.” > > Why there is no “immortal soul” doctrine in the Bible, for the lost, at all. As far as the pro-traditionalist view goes, here is excerpts of a sermon that I made into a video: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/DkbO4tMslG0/maxresdefault.jpg "Glorious Eternal Torture") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkbO4tMslG0) ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/90 "2014-12-25T09:38:00Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > …And yes, I know you can say “oh, my religion doesn’t believe in hell” or something like that. It doesn’t matter. The fact is that there are lots of people who do, and those are the people we’re discussing. Such anecdotes are irrelevant to the discussion. Ok well this is from my sisters pastor: (I added the pic and sound effects) He is impressed with how “glorious” God is because of how extreme the punishment is. Though on his website he only provides one verse to justify their church’s belief in it. It is Revelation and it just says the smoke of their torment is eternal - see my previous post about why that doesn’t necessarily mean humans suffer eternally. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/91 "2014-12-25T10:50:11Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Any parent who would let their child “learn the hard way” when it comes to hell is a monster. To clarify this, “learn the hard way” implies a lesson will be taught. Well guess what. Once you’re in hell, there’s no more lesson. It’s game over. Anything you might have learned is irrelevant and pointless. You’re stuck there, being tortured, forever. You could learn anything you want, and it would be meaningless. It’s like saying “Well, I tried to convince him not to jump off buildings, but he wouldn’t listen. Guess he’ll learn the hard way”. Learn what? He’ll have the microseconds between the front of his head hitting the pavement and his brain going “splat” to process that lesson. Similarly, once someone is in hell, undergoing unimaginable torture forever, it’s too late for them to learn anything that would matter. I’ll say it again. If you believed that people were doing things that would send them to hell, it would be immoralto do anything other than everything. EVERYTHING within your power to stop that from happening. After all, you know how to spend an eternity in heaven; why should you even remotely care what happens to you here on earth? Why should it matter? Why should anything we do here matter more than our eternal souls? Christianity as practised by many adherents, particularly the evangelicals in the USA, is a horrifying death cult. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/92 "2014-12-25T12:04:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > For example, a parent might love their child, but decide that if their child is content to live a dangerous life, that they have to let that child learn the hard way. Does that make them love their child any less than someone who spends every waking moment of every day trying to get that child to change? > > Of course not. Put into mortal, human terms this would be like a parent trying to teach a toddler the value of looking both ways when crossing the street by nodding in wise approval as their kid runs across a six lane freeway. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/93 "2014-12-25T22:44:09Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Even if you aren’t capable of fully understanding the concept of infinity, you can still understand that it’s worse than any finite punishment you can imagine. It makes no sense to say that because it’s so bad, people are unable to understand that it’s bad. > > If I said that we had a pain ray that would cause every pain receiving nerve in your body to fire at full force - essentially the most pain a human being could bee in - and that you’d endure it for an hour, you’d realize that’s horrific. If you had to suffer it for a month, it would probably shatter your psyche. It’s unlikely that you’d ever commit all but the most low risk, most lucrative crimes, and even then most people wouldn’t. What about a year under the pain ray, with no chance of early merciful death? A decade? A century? People can comprehend these finite things, even if they’re more horrific than anything a human being has experienced before. All they have to do is to understand that hell is worse than that. > > To excuse them for not understanding that eternity suffering is bad is like saying that you could understand that an hour under the pain beam is bad, but a century isn’t, because who could comprehend a century of pain? > > And people who commit crimes against society often think they won’t get caught. Or they’ll get off on some technicality. Or they can buy their way out. You can’t commit a crime against an omnipresent god and get away with it. And the punishment is as severe as anyone can imagine. Why would anyone risk even the most minor sin, if they truly believed that was on the table? I think that most Christians and Muslims who believe in Hell also believe it is bad and something to avoid. However, what hell is actually like, as an eternal state, is something beyond our grasp. As I said, to the extent where words like “bad”, “worse than,” “punishment” etc. are finite, analogical and ultimately inadequate. What this means is not that we cannot look at the analogical descriptions and tell anything about hell, or that we cannot criticize or reject the concepts of hell that we hear. But I question whether we can say for sure what is the logical reaction to an infinite concept that we can only know by finite analogy, and where those analogies have traditionally carried complicating connotations of “free will”, “justice”, etc. This thread could just as easily be about why Christians, who ostensibly believe in the love and grace of God, are not super-happy all the time. St. Peter exhorts Christians to live happier, which seems to imply that he thought they needed to be told. These were people who had sacrificed a lot to become Christians, faced persecution (from society if not the state), and still they weren’t joyful about God’s love? Rather than think that they actually underwent all that for something they didn’t ‘really’ believe in, it leads me to conclusions about people’s natures in general. Definitely, a lot of people don’t think too much about what they believe, because their beliefs function as tools to make sense of the world they inhabit. Someone who believes in hell might not think about it too much, the way someone who drives a car might not think about how the car works or the effects of smog. I personally would prefer it if more people thought about these things, but I’m not sure that they would all reach the conclusions that you do, even after thinking about it. Your analogy of the pain ray made me think that yeah, it would hurt for a year or a century, but after 50 trillion years, I’d get used to it, then it’s smooth sailing for the next infinity 🙂 And what’s 50 trillion years to eternity? That’s why the game changes. All of the punishments that we experience in this world are only undesirable because of our nature as finite beings. Actually there are lots of very ‘charming’ explanations religious people have thought up over the years to get around this by explaining how you never get used to the punishments of hell, but as terrible and sadistic as those arguments can be, I tend to see their function as more like culturally-situated artistic flourishes emphasizing a general understanding that hell is something we should want to avoid, that it is contrary to something fundamental about our human-ness, even if what we really know about it is finite compared to its infiniteness. I recognize, though, that I am very lucky to be in a situation where I can view ideas like this and not be particularly affected by them. I’ve met far too many people for whom ideas of hell, in particular, affected them deeply and were traumatizing. If you ask whether I’m going to stand with a pastor who uses violent visions of hell as one of his artistic flourishes, or a young kid who is hearing that and suffering, my loyalties are with the latter. Sorry for my late and rambling reply, I hope you are enjoying the holidays 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/94 "2014-12-25T23:16:09Z")
Hell is quite possibly the most immature of the major concepts associated with Christianity (a title for which it has a lot of competition). “Jesus says I have to forgive you, but _he_ won’t, so you’ll burn forever and ever and ever. Heh-heh-heh. Neener neener neener…” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/95 "2014-12-25T23:46:04Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Your analogy of the pain ray made me think that yeah, it would hurt for a year or a century, but after 50 trillion years, I’d get used to it, then it’s smooth sailing for the next infinity 🙂 And what’s 50 trillion years to eternity? That’s not how intractable, extreme pain works. You’d _never_ get used to it. And given that the whole point is to torture you to please an omnipotent being, you probably wouldn’t even be allowed to go insane. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/96 "2014-12-26T00:12:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s not how intractable, extreme pain works. You’d _never_ get used to it. > > And given that the whole point is to torture you to please an omnipotent being, you probably wouldn’t even be allowed to go insane. Do you have a cite for how intractable, extreme pain works that explains why I wouldn’t get used to it after 50 trillion years? It isn’t actually meaningful either way for the larger point I was making, but I’d be interested to read it. Like I said, I’ve heard of the ways that some believers in an eternal hell try to get around the problems of eternity (from regenerating nerves to more metaphysical discussions about states of anguished being that are outside of time) but I don’t find them very intellectually satisfying. Big surprise, huh 🙂 Hope you enjoy the holidays! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/97 "2014-12-26T00:57:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There’s a thread on this in the IMHO forum; there is a view held there, which I share, that, yes, if someone really wants, he can influence his own beliefs. I do acknowledge the other viewpoint, held by many, that no one can “choose” what to believe or disbelieve. But my opinion is that, if I seriously wanted to, I could believe just about anything I set my mind to. > > Obviously, this isn’t something very often practiced… Concur - a sort of self-brainwashing probably is technically possible, but I don’t think that’s what people really mean when they talk about ‘choosing to believe’. I think in fact the exasperation of the faithful in the ‘choice to not-believe’ of others is in fact something like a failure of empathy - an inability or unwillingness to see or understand another point of view. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/98 "2014-12-26T10:05:01Z")
Eternal punishment, schmeternal schmunishment. Eternal reward presents the same problems. The sticking point is actually the concept of eternity, as pointed out by **Learjeff**. If people had any understanding of what is implied by “eternity” itself, they’d be less likely to talk such rot. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/99 "2014-12-28T20:15:20Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > If you truly believe that failing your god’s test will result in this fate, you would live your life in a dedication of god and his rules that rival any monk’s. You would, if you were a decent person, live your life trying to desperately save anyone else you could from this fate, because if you could save just one person, you would prevent more suffering than you could ever comprehend. And yet people don’t. Torquemada beat you to it. > [@](#): > > Why? These are the potential conclusions: > > 1. People are so callous to the suffering of others that they can function in light of the fact that they believe many of them will suffer this fate, and many are so evil that they would actually take satisfaction that this fate is inflicted upon those who they judge unworthy. This is so casual, and yet so much more evil than anything inflicted by anyone who ever lived. > > 2. People are so compartmentalized that they don’t really form a psyche in a complete whole. They can take these beliefs - these beliefs that are so important that they should dictate every waking thought, and guide their every action - and simply ignore them when convenient. > > “Haven’t really thought about it” is not a valid excuse here. Whether or not you pass god’s test, and whether you could help others do the same, is the only thing that could matter in your mortal life, everything else is trivial in comparison. If this, logically, should be by far your most pressing concern, and yet during your whole life you never bothered to think about it, your psyche is not a complete whole. > > The actions and thoughts of these people simply don’t make sense. You cannot simultaneously believe “eating that cupcake gets me eternal punishment” and “I think I’m going to eat that cupcake” - so if you do indeed hold those beliefs, your personality is essentially a mish mash of conflicting ideas that don’t interact with each other. > > 1. People don’t really believe this shit. I think to some degree compartmentalization plays a role in this. They essentially only believe it enough to scratch whatever psychological itch they need scratched. They pick and choose which of their god’s rules really count based on their own biases and willingness to sacrifice. They realize on some level that this makes their beliefs bullshit, but they never have the fortitude to admit it. It’s too easy socially and psychologically to maintain the belief that, on some level, they realize is bullshit. And so they choose to tell themselves they believe it - and when it’s psychologically convenient, perhaps they think they really do. You are missing options. Like the fact that people have a really tough time grasping statistical likelihoods. Or the fact that people can grasp an immediate danger, but have more trouble holding onto a long term danger in their minds. That people tend to focus on what’s in front of them, that they are biologically driven to put things out of their minds in part so they can continue to function in the here and now. That the conscious brain is a construct stuffed on top of a less thoughtful and reflective undercarriage, the “reptile brain” that runs basic needs and desires, not contemplative reverie. Their belief in this version of hell and God doesn’t make it true, but it should make them feel like it’s true and act accordingly. But humans are complex creatures driven by weird biochemistry, so they don’t function logically. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Sin does cause you to go to hell. You’re born with original sin, and if you never hear the name Jesus Christ or any of his teaching, you’re fucked. This is the popular teaching among protestants, as I understand it, at least. Isn’t it also a fundamental belief for Catholics? That’s why they do that baby baptismal, the “christening”, so if the baby dies it is saved. Protestants tend to believe no baptismal like that could ever be valid, that the choice must be conscious. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > As I understand it, this is close but not 100% correct. > > A good friend of mine was raised Methodist, and when I asked him what was different about the Methodist church from other Christian sects, he said that part of it was their belief that as long as you had accepted Jesus as your saviour and lord, you went to heaven. Didn’t matter if it was Pol Pot or Stalin or your grandmother, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour, they were going to heaven. I don’t think that’s strictly limited to Methodists. It’s the breakdown of “faith” versus “works”. Many protestants don’t believe that works matter in whether you are saved, the only qualification is your faith. Do you accept Jesus and God at the time of your death or not? If so, you’re in despite any works you’ve ever done, if not, you are out despite any works you have done. Growing up Southern Baptist, that was what I experienced. > [@](#): > > ETA: Another friend of mine was Baptist, specifically Southern Baptist. When I asked her the same question, she said 1) they don’t dance and 2) they believe in a _just_ god, not a loving god. The dance thing wasn’t strictly true - we never had a problem with it in the church I grew up. It was a longstanding joke, but nothing serious. I visited another big mega Southern Baptist church and they seemed to be the same way. Now we didn’t dance _during the service_, but that’s different. As far as the just versus loving God, I can only comment that there were factions within the church that held different ideas, and church politics could be bitter at times. What was stressed to me was the person’s individual relationship to God. Or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/100 "2014-12-29T08:38:22Z")
Hell implies that either God is a moron or that the people who believe in such a god are morons. Eternal suffering would accomplish WHAT? How can anything be learned form that? What would you think of parents who shot their teenage son for not cleaning up his room? He didn’t do what he was told now he won’t do it right forever. 😃 As religious beliefs go reincarnation makes more sense but who cares? Maybe God is really dumb. :smack: psik [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=6)