How do we know hell is hellish?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Hell has to be Hellish. The real question is if Hellish is bad.

[Queeb Salaron]

Hades encompasses all three: The good place(The Elysium Fields, where the heros of the world get to party hard all the time, with the usual assortment of sherbert, young nubile virgins, and beer.), the medium place(Hades Proper, where you simply lost your identity and become one of the Many.. That's pretty bad, ain't it?), and the bad(The specific punishments for those who fuck with the Gods.. Your liver pecked out daily, pointless tasks, etc...)

That legend of Prometheus still turns my stomach every time I hear it... ::Shudders::

[Howedar]

If one is willing to accept that hell exists, presumably one is also willing to accept that it is hellish. Either you belive both because the Bible says so, or you believe neither because there is no corroberating evidence.

[AdmiralKanos]

If one is willing to accept that hell exists, presumably one is also willing to accept that it is hellish. Either you belive both because the Bible says so, or you believe neither because there is no corroberating evidence.

I was unaware that the Bible is the only religious text in the world which has a concept of Hell, or that one must either subscribe completely to its one-sided propaganda or reject it entirely (which is the exact argument fundies use when they reject moderate Christianity).

[NecronLord]

How do we know grey is greyish.

I believe you meant, how do we know hell is unpleaseant.

If it exists there is no evidence as no-one has ever returned.

[Howedar]

I was unaware that the Bible is the only religious text in the world which has a concept of Hell, or that one must either subscribe completely to its one-sided propaganda or reject it entirely (which is the exact argument fundies use when they reject moderate Christianity).

Very well, if you want to interpret what I said literally (which by the way is exactly the same problem you have with fundies), technically I didn't address all of the other texts that describe Hell as hellish.

But frankly, if you're willing to accept the existence of Hell with absolutely zero evidence besides religious texts, but aren't willing to accept the hellishness of Hell with exactly the same backup, you're just deluding yourself, not believing something because you don't like it.

[Darth Wong]

I was unaware that the Bible is the only religious text in the world which has a concept of Hell, or that one must either subscribe completely to its one-sided propaganda or reject it entirely (which is the exact argument fundies use when they reject moderate Christianity).

Very well, if you want to interpret what I said literally (which by the way is exactly the same problem you have with fundies), technically I didn't address all of the other texts that describe Hell as hellish.

Arguments are normally not meant to be inaccurate allegory.

But frankly, if you're willing to accept the existence of Hell with absolutely zero evidence besides religious texts, but aren't willing to accept the hellishness of Hell with exactly the same backup, you're just deluding yourself, not believing something because you don't like it.

I can debate the nature of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars without believing it's real; why must I accept the Bible in order to debate the nature of Hell? This debate obviously pushes your emotional buttons, as evidenced by the way you immediately resort to focusing on the man (eg- "you have no right to talk about this because you're not a Christian").

[Howedar]

I can debate the nature of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars without believing it's real; why must I accept the Bible in order to debate the nature of Hell? This debate obviously pushes your emotional buttons, as evidenced by the way you immediately resort to focusing on the man (eg- "you have no right to talk about this because you're not a Christian").

Now you're just trying to be offended. If you're willing to accept that Hell exists, it is reasonable to assume that it is as it is described. I assumed that this thread was referring to what Hell presumably is according to (primarily) Christian belief and dogma, not what it could be or should be.

*EDIT* As for your GE analogy, as far as I can tell you debate only the magntiudes of various GE aspects: how many ships, how powerful the weapons, how fast the ships go, etc. As far as I can tell, you do not debate that, for example, the GE is in fact made up of hyperintelligent slugs.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I think the threadstarter should've been more clear -- are we discussing "the bad place" as is common to most mythologies? Or are we discussing the Christian "Hell" specifically?

[Darth Wong]

I can debate the nature of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars without believing it's real; why must I accept the Bible in order to debate the nature of Hell? This debate obviously pushes your emotional buttons, as evidenced by the way you immediately resort to focusing on the man (eg- "you have no right to talk about this because you're not a Christian").

Now you're just trying to be offended.

Why does it not surprise me that you appeal to motive rather than addressing my criticism of your ad-hominem fallacy? Is it not true that you declared I should not comment on the Biblical Hell if I don't believe in it, ie- I'm not allowed to comment since I'm not Christian?

If you're willing to accept that Hell exists, it is reasonable to assume that it is as it is described.

Nonsense. If I suspend disbelief for the Bible, then I can conclude that I'm listening to a one-sided propaganda piece, and that the other side has not been represented. Therefore, it is not reasonable to take it completely at face value, particularly when the person doing all of the talking is a mass-murderer by his own admission. All we can really conclude about Hell from the Bible is that a prolific genocidal baby-murderer says that his place is waaaay better than Satan's place.

I assumed that this thread was referring to what Hell presumably is according to (primarily) Christian belief and dogma, not what it could be or should be.

Your assumptions do not constitute actual facts, yet you treat them as such and chastise me for not sharing them.

*EDIT* As for your GE analogy, as far as I can tell you debate only the magntiudes of various GE aspects: how many ships, how powerful the weapons, how fast the ships go, etc. As far as I can tell, you do not debate that, for example, the GE is in fact made up of hyperintelligent slugs.

Please show how this is in any way analogous to the fact that I don't mindlessly accept one side's propaganda at face value when reading the Bible. I don't do that in real life, nor do I do that when I look at Star Wars. Do you?

[Howedar]

I can debate the nature of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars without believing it's real; why must I accept the Bible in order to debate the nature of Hell? This debate obviously pushes your emotional buttons, as evidenced by the way you immediately resort to focusing on the man (eg- "you have no right to talk about this because you're not a Christian").

Now you're just trying to be offended.

Why does it not surprise me that you appeal to motive rather than addressing my criticism of your ad-hominem fallacy? Is it not true that you declared I should not comment on the Biblical Hell if I don't believe in it, ie- I'm not allowed to comment since I'm not Christian?

It is absolutely not true.

If you're willing to accept that Hell exists, it is reasonable to assume that it is as it is described.

Nonsense. If I suspend disbelief for the Bible, then I can conclude that I'm listening to a one-sided propaganda piece, and that the other side has not been represented. Therefore, it is not reasonable to take it completely at face value, particularly when the person doing all of the talking is a mass-murderer by his own admission. All we can really conclude about Hell from the Bible is that a prolific genocidal baby-murderer says that his place is waaaay better than Satan's place.

Fair enough.

I assumed that this thread was referring to what Hell presumably is according to (primarily) Christian belief and dogma, not what it could be or should be.

Your assumptions do not constitute actual facts, yet you treat them as such and chastise me for not sharing them.[/quote]Likewise.

*EDIT* As for your GE analogy, as far as I can tell you debate only the magntiudes of various GE aspects: how many ships, how powerful the weapons, how fast the ships go, etc. As far as I can tell, you do not debate that, for example, the GE is in fact made up of hyperintelligent slugs.

Please show how this is in any way analogous to the fact that I don't mindlessly accept one side's propaganda at face value when reading the Bible. I don't do that in real life, nor do I do that when I look at Star Wars. Do you?

When one side's propaganda is all you have, you have no reason not to take it at face value. Certainly, you have nothing else to go on.

(edited to fix quote formatting)

[Darth Wong]

It is absolutely not true.

Oh really! Then why did you say this:

If one is willing to accept that hell exists, presumably one is also willing to accept that it is hellish. Either you belive both because the Bible says so, or you believe neither because there is no corroberating evidence.

Hmmmm, it looks like you're saying that either I must completely accept the Biblical account at face value, or I cannot comment at all. And guess what: I have every confidence that it looks that way to everyone else too. Denial in the face of contradictory evidence is a poor debate tactic, Howedar. Nice attempt to backpedal.

All we can really conclude about Hell from the Bible is that a prolific genocidal baby-murderer says that his place is waaaay better than Satan's place.

Fair enough.

It should be noted, however, that it's quite feasible to produce a working theory based on the evidence, even if we can't be certain.

Your assumptions do not constitute actual facts, yet you treat them as such and chastise me for not sharing them.

Likewise.

Present the evidence for your claim that your assumption (that the original post referred specifically to the Christian Hell and mandated absolute acceptance of Christian dogma) is somehow mirrored in my posts.

Please show how this is in any way analogous to the fact that I don't mindlessly accept one side's propaganda at face value when reading the Bible. I don't do that in real life, nor do I do that when I look at Star Wars. Do you?

When one side's propaganda is all you have, you have no reason not to take it at face value. Certainly, you have nothing else to go on.

Sure I do, since I am capable of reasoning. Satan spends all his time wandering around on Earth, as do his demons and other minions. Therefore, one can quite easily "read between the lines" to see that "Hell" in the Bible is simply afterlife in exile from God's fiefdom, and is not any form of entrapment in any particular locale despite God's claims to the contrary. Since God obviously cannot or will not confine Satan or his followers to keep them from wandering the Earth, the only reason to suspect entrapment would be if Satan is doing it, and one can clearly see from Satan's actions in the Bible that he is a libertarian, so this is highly unlikely.

[Howedar]

Hmmmm, it looks like you're saying that either I must completely accept the Biblical account at face value, or I cannot comment at all. And guess what: I have every confidence that it looks that way to everyone else too. Denial in the face of contradictory evidence is a poor debate tactic, Howedar. Nice attempt to backpedal.

Don't be an idiot. I said that it is reasonable to accept both. I didn't say you had to goosestep with evil Christian propaganda. For fuck's sake, get a grip on reality.

Your assumptions do not constitute actual facts, yet you treat them as such and chastise me for not sharing them.

Likewise.

Present the evidence for your claim that the original post referred specifically to the Christian Hell and mandated absolute acceptance of Christian dogma is somehow mirrored in my posts.[/quote]As far as I know, Christian Hell and Jewish Hell is the same. Since the OP specifically mentioned such things as cast-out angels. As far as I know, that limits the discussion to the Judeo-Christian Hell.

Or, you could present a sentance that makes sense. I can't make heads or tails of your whining about your posts and Christian dogma.

Sure I do, since I am capable of reasoning. Satan spends all his time wandering around on Earth, as do his demons and other minions. Therefore, one can quite easily "read between the lines" to see that "Hell" in the Bible is simply afterlife in exile from God's fiefdom, and is not any form of entrapment in any particular locale despite God's claims to the contrary. Since God obviously cannot or will not confine Satan or his followers to keep them from wandering the Earth, the only reason to suspect entrapment would be if Satan is doing it, and one can clearly see from Satan's actions in the Bible that he is a libertarian, so this is highly unlikely.

So essentially, you're taking information from a source (the Bible, it appears) to prove that the same source is wrong. Kinda circular, don't you think?

[Darth Wong]

Hmmmm, it looks like you're saying that either I must completely accept the Biblical account at face value, or I cannot comment at all. And guess what: I have every confidence that it looks that way to everyone else too. Denial in the face of contradictory evidence is a poor debate tactic, Howedar. Nice attempt to backpedal.

Don't be an idiot. I said that it is reasonable to accept both. I didn't say you had to goosestep with evil Christian propaganda. For fuck's sake, get a grip on reality.

Awwww, are we getting upset now? Facts don't sit well with us when they're inconvenient? You said that one must either accept Hell and the Bible's one-sided account lock, stock, and barrel, or neither. You can deny that there's anything wrong with this asinine false dilemma if you like, but you will only fool yourself.

As far as I know, Christian Hell and Jewish Hell is the same. Since the OP specifically mentioned such things as cast-out angels. As far as I know, that limits the discussion to the Judeo-Christian Hell.

Many religions have their own forms of Hell. And there is certainly no reason for the other half of your assumption, which is that one must wholeheartedly accept Christian dogma at face value in order to participate in this thread.

Or, you could present a sentance that makes sense. I can't make heads or tails of your whining about your posts and Christian dogma.

Your refusal to think while reading is not my problem.

Sure I do, since I am capable of reasoning. Satan spends all his time wandering around on Earth, as do his demons and other minions. Therefore, one can quite easily "read between the lines" to see that "Hell" in the Bible is simply afterlife in exile from God's fiefdom, and is not any form of entrapment in any particular locale despite God's claims to the contrary. Since God obviously cannot or will not confine Satan or his followers to keep them from wandering the Earth, the only reason to suspect entrapment would be if Satan is doing it, and one can clearly see from Satan's actions in the Bible that he is a libertarian, so this is highly unlikely.

So essentially, you're taking information from a source (the Bible, it appears) to prove that the same source is wrong. Kinda circular, don't you think?

Let's add "circular logic" to the list of items which obviously escape your comprehension, since it is quite clear now that you simply fling names of fallacies without knowing what they mean or how they apply. Circular logic is the use of a premise in order to prove itself. This hardly qualifies.

"Reading between the lines" to separate facts from boastful statements is a very common activity, and in fact, historians must do this to firsthand accounts all the time. Your ignorance of this widely known fact reflects poorly on you, not me.

[Howedar]

Hmmmm, it looks like you're saying that either I must completely accept the Biblical account at face value, or I cannot comment at all. And guess what: I have every confidence that it looks that way to everyone else too. Denial in the face of contradictory evidence is a poor debate tactic, Howedar. Nice attempt to backpedal.

Don't be an idiot. I said that it is reasonable to accept both. I didn't say you had to goosestep with evil Christian propaganda. For fuck's sake, get a grip on reality.

Awwww, are we getting upset now? Facts don't sit well with us when they're inconvenient? You said that one must either accept Hell and the Bible's one-sided account lock, stock, and barrel, or neither. You can deny that there's anything wrong with this asinine false dilemma if you like, but you will only fool yourself.

You're a chickenshit liar. You don't know what to say, so you yell louder and try to piss the other guy off. I expected better of you, Mike.

As far as I know, Christian Hell and Jewish Hell is the same. Since the OP specifically mentioned such things as cast-out angels. As far as I know, that limits the discussion to the Judeo-Christian Hell.

Many religions have their own forms of Hell.

You told me to look at the opening post. That is precisely what I did. Now, I ask the same. Look at the opening post, Mike.

And there is certainly no reason for the other half of your assumption, which is that one must wholeheartedly accept Christian dogma at face value in order to participate in this thread.

Your assumption, not mine.

Or, you could present a sentance that makes sense. I can't make heads or tails of your whining about your posts and Christian dogma.

Your refusal to think while reading is not my problem.

I daresay that I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.

Let's add "circular logic" to the list of items which obviously escape your comprehension, since it is quite clear now that you simply fling names of fallacies without knowing what they mean or how they apply. Circular logic is the use of a premise in order to prove itself. This hardly qualifies.

Okay, correct me where I stray from the facts here.
1. For the sake of argument, you accept the existence of Judeo-Christian Hell from the Old Testament of the Bible.
2. You look at the description of Hell in the Bible, and disagree.
3. You proceed to use other information presented in the Bible to disprove the Bible's own description of Hell.

Did I miss something here, or are you using a source to disprove itself?

[Darth Wong]

You're a chickenshit liar. You don't know what to say, so you yell louder and try to piss the other guy off. I expected better of you, Mike.

I like the way I provide quotes to back up what I'm saying while you just scream insults and refuse to address the facts presented in any way. Please, do go on. If nothing else, it's an interesting case study in the emotional response of a Christian to any topic which touches on his religious beliefs.

You told me to look at the opening post. That is precisely what I did. Now, I ask the same. Look at the opening post, Mike.

I did. Here it is:

y question is this, if Hell realy is run by a lot of cast out angels wouldn't they try to make it like another heaven? I mean wouldn't that be the only way you could get a good satanic following?

Nope, nothing in there about it specifically being the Christian Hell. Or perhaps you are simply too ignorant to recognize that many religions have some kind of heaven and hell (EDIT: or that there are many variations upon the Christian Hell itself)? Also nothing in there about having to stick strictly to Christian dogma; in fact, the act of asking for alternate interpretations of Hell explicitly demands that we do NOT stick strictly to Christian dogma. Too bad, so sad, but you lose.

I daresay that I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.

Go on telling yourself that, while I'm the one citing all of the relevant pieces of evidence directly while you simply get mad and scream at me.

Okay, correct me where I stray from the facts here.
1. For the sake of argument, you accept the existence of Judeo-Christian Hell from the Old Testament of the Bible.
2. You look at the description of Hell in the Bible, and disagree.
3. You proceed to use other information presented in the Bible to disprove the Bible's own description of Hell.

Did I miss something here, or are you using a source to disprove itself?

Using a source to PROVE itself is circular logic. However, using a source to DISPROVE itself is not circular logic, since discrepancies in an account are clear disproof of the literal factual accuracy of that account. That is how police investigators figure out that a criminal's story is wrong, dumb-ass.

[Howedar]

You're a chickenshit liar. You don't know what to say, so you yell louder and try to piss the other guy off. I expected better of you, Mike.

I like the way I provide quotes to back up what I'm saying while you just scream insults and refuse to address the facts presented in any way. Please, do go on. If nothing else, it's an interesting case study in the emotional response of a Christian to any topic which touches on his religious beliefs.

And you are an interesting case study in the emotional response of a militant atheist to any topic which touches on his view of religion.

I did. Here it is:

y question is this, if Hell realy is run by a lot of cast out angels wouldn't they try to make it like another heaven? I mean wouldn't that be the only way you could get a good satanic following?

Nope, nothing in there about it specifically being the Christian Hell. Or perhaps you are simply too ignorant to recognize that many religions have some kind of heaven and hell? Also nothing in there about having to stick strictly to Christian dogma; in fact, the act of asking for alternate interpretations of Hell explicitly demands that we do NOT stick strictly to Christian dogma. Too bad, so sad, but you lose.

Yeah, you see that "cast out angels" bit? I ask in all seriousness: are there any other religions that have angels at all, let alone cast out angels in a form of Hell?

I daresay that I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.

Go on telling yourself that, while I'm the one citing all of the relevant pieces of evidence directly while you simply get mad and scream at me.

Would you like me to call the wahmbulance, Mike? Maybe whine-one-one?

Seriously, neither of us have a leg to stand on but our own beliefs, and you know it. Unless you count Word's grammar checking.

Using a source to PROVE itself is circular logic. However, using a source to DISPROVE itself is not circular logic, since discrepancies in an account are clear disproof of the literal factual accuracy of that account.

I conceed the point. It is not techincally circular logic.

[Darth Wong]

If nothing else, it's an interesting case study in the emotional response of a Christian to any topic which touches on his religious beliefs.

And you are an interesting case study in the emotional response of a militant atheist to any topic which touches on his view of religion.

Yes, I resort to nasty tricks such as directly quoting evidence and reminding people of the proper definitions of logic principles

Yeah, you see that "cast out angels" bit? I ask in all seriousness: are there any other religions that have angels at all, let alone cast out angels in a form of Hell?

Most religions have various forms of spirits which vary from malevolent to benevolent. And casting out demigods from Heaven is quite common as well; the Greek religion had this in spades. Not my fault if you insist on being narrow-minded.

Go on telling yourself that, while I'm the one citing all of the relevant pieces of evidence directly while you simply get mad and scream at me.

Would you like me to call the wahmbulance, Mike? Maybe whine-one-one?

I'd prefer it if you started addressing the evidence, but if you'd rather scream and rant and insert smart-ass remarks in lieu of addressing the point, that's fine. It damages your argument more than it does mine.

Seriously, neither of us have a leg to stand on but our own beliefs, and you know it. Unless you count Word's grammar checking.

No, I simply point out an alternative explanation which just happens to fit the eyewitness descriptions of events happening on Earth depicted in the Bible, while you disregard it and insist that a genocidal baby-murderer must always be telling the absolute truth when he's advertising himself, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

Using a source to PROVE itself is circular logic. However, using a source to DISPROVE itself is not circular logic, since discrepancies in an account are clear disproof of the literal factual accuracy of that account.

I conceed the point. It is not techincally circular logic.

It is not even REMOTELY circular logic.

[Howedar]

Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of headway. If its all the same to you, I'll quit arguing sematic issues and find something more substantive elsewhere. If you wish to post some asinine "concession accepted" picture, now's the time.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of headway. If its all the same to you, I'll quit arguing sematic issues and find something more substantive elsewhere. If you wish to post some asinine "concession accepted" picture, now's the time.

I guess it's easier to waltz away with passive/aggressive attacks on your opponent than to address any of the quotes and evidence raised

[Howedar]

Keep throwing them insults, Mike. You're just getting entertaining.

[Darth Wong]

Keep throwing them insults, Mike. You're just getting entertaining.

Obviously more entertaining than those direct quotes I posted earlier, which you had no answer for.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Straha wrote:
y question is this, if Hell realy is run by a lot of cast out angels wouldn't they try to make it like another heaven? I mean wouldn't that be the only way you could get a good satanic following?

Nope, nothing in there about it specifically being the Christian Hell. Or perhaps you are simply too ignorant to recognize that many religions have some kind of heaven and hell (EDIT: or that there are many variations upon the Christian Hell itself)? Also nothing in there about having to stick strictly to Christian dogma; in fact, the act of asking for alternate interpretations of Hell explicitly demands that we do NOT stick strictly to Christian dogma. Too bad, so sad, but you lose.

Shit. Hate to do it, Mike, but I have to point out that, yes, the context of the thread -- which specifies not only "fallen angels" but an attempt to recruit a "Satanic following" pretty much narrows it down to the Jedeo-Christian mythology.

Now, it may be possible that other mythologies' demons and devils try to recruit human followers (in fact, on second thought, it's pretty likely) but I think from the context of the opening post it was intended that we discuss the jcm version of "hell & the devil".

I hope that made sense.

[Darth Wong]

... in fact, the act of asking for alternate interpretations of Hell explicitly demands that we do NOT stick strictly to Christian dogma. Too bad, so sad, but you lose.

Shit. Hate to do it, Mike, but I have to point out that, yes, the context of the thread -- which specifies not only "fallen angels" but an attempt to recruit a "Satanic following" pretty much narrows it down to the Jedeo-Christian mythology.

Why? Many religions have various forms of demigods ranging from good ones (aka "angels") and bad ones (aka "demons"), as well as demigods being cast out of Heaven. I suppose that if you insist the word "angel" automatically implies the use of the Christian definition of the word, it could be specific, but that doesn't change the fact that Straha explicitly asked for alternate interpretations, hence was obviously not simply asking for a restatement of the standard dogmatic interpretation as Howedar claimed.

Now, it may be possible that other mythologies' demons and devils try to recruit human followers (in fact, on second thought, it's pretty likely) but I think from the context of the opening post it was intended that we discuss the jcm version of "hell & the devil".

I hope that made sense.

I know what you're saying, but it would be pretty silly for Straha to ask for alternate interpretations if he was also simultaneously restricting it to the "accepted" Judeo-Christian interpretation, wouldn't it?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

That would seem a little strange, but you already made a stride in that direction by pointing out that Satan and his henchmen (lol, love that word in this context) can wander around on Earth.

I think maybe what Straha meant was evidence in the Bible that contradicts the standard, conventional view of Hell. Alternately, he may have wanted us to take the basic premises of the Biblical account of Satan and hell and apply logic to the root of the premise to arrive at a different conclusion about the nature of Hell.