Is It Better To Be In Hell Or To Never Have Existed?

[LivingStone]

I understand that there are different points that can be brought up and different viewpoints, i.e. from the viewpoint of happiness of the human person or from the viewpoint of God or objective vs. subjective, etc.

Is it better to be in Hell for the rest of eternity or is it better to never have existed (or to be the a "state" of non-existence)?

On one hand, I understand that both Matthew 11:11and Mark 26:24 state, "'The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man bywhom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that manif he had not been born.'" It would seem that this would imply that non-existence would be subjectively (by subjective, I mean as in the subject acting, not in a 'relative' sense of the word) better or superior than to be in Hell for the rest of eternity. This argument can be spelled out by an argument from happiness of the human person.

On the other hand, and the side to which I seem to be holding too, is that it is better to be in the state of Hell than to never have existed. I, along with the philosophers and theologians Sts. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, both hold that 'existence is better than non-existence'. For those who are in Hell, even though deprived of all goods except for existence, still exist, and their existence is still good (in the same sense that Satan is evil, but is good only insofar as he exists). Existence shows a dependence upon God, for God holds us in existence in God. And it is true, that if we are in Hell, it is only just that we are there, and it would seem that God would hold us in existence out of Love, for nothing can separate us from the Love of God (Romans 8). I'm not sure if this is a Thomistic viewpoint or not, but this is the side I tend to lean towards in the qualm.

Please respond and debate or whatever you choose to do. If you have sources, all the greater!

Thanks,
M

[T-Bone _]

It's probably better to never have existed, on a personal level, but God cannot "un-exist" people.

[Sternhauser]

An existence in hell is better than non-existence. Of course, the last time I said that, I was told, "Your quote is full of FAIL." That individual did not respond to my question "which is better: existence or non-existence?"

~Sternhauser

Edited November 13, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Jesus_lol]

well, i suppose if i was in the torment of hell, i would at least have the memories of good deeds i had performed, any positive influence on the world i left behind.
being "unexisted" like that terrifies me. sure, no pain, but nothing else either.

[Hassan]

[quote name='LivingStone' date='13 November 2009 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1258088472' post='2001910']
Existence shows a dependence upon God, for God holds us in existence in God. And it is true, that if we are in Hell, it is only just that we are there, and it would seem that God would hold us in existence out of Love, for nothing can separate us from the Love of God (Romans 8). I'm not sure if this is a Thomistic viewpoint or not, but this is the side I tend to lean towards in the qualm.

Please respond and debate or whatever you choose to do. If you have sources, all the greater!

Thanks,
M
[/quote]

If I had never existed, then there would be no me to regret this fact. Obviously that's more humane than eternal torture with no possibility of redemption.

[bonkers]

Hmmmm, the only thing that makes existence worthwhile is the hope and fun we get to have (hell denies us this). Take that away and you have a burden, non existence isn't a burden so I'd pick non-existence.

[Guest Jon]

I truly think this question is pretty easy. Spend even an hour in hell
and I bet you'd
be wishin' you never existed.

God bless,
Jon

[Mark of the Cross]

I seem to remember that satan and those who serve it are to be thrown into the lake of fire. This is understood to be the second death, non existence! So people who reject God reject existence!
[size="2"][sup]

[/sup][/size]Revelation 20:11-15
[size="2"][sup]14[/sup]Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. [sup]15[/sup]If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.[/size]

Edited November 14, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Aloysius]

Mark of the Cross, the Lake of Fire represents the final eternity of hell, because in the final judgment, all souls (in heaven and in hell) are reunited with their bodies, and their bodies are thrown with their souls into the final lake of judgment. It doesn't make them not exist anymore, nothing in the text indicates that they no long exist; simply that they then exist in the lake of fire. first death did not cause non-existence, nor does second death cause non-existence.

Apotheoun once put this in a way that I really really liked, which actually kind of shifted my whole understanding of hell to a different spectrum in my thoughts (thoughts which were inspired by Apo's statement but I do not here claim that they would be Apo's thoughts on the matter, I'm not sure and he can speak for himself there)... a spectrum which I will admit sometimes lends itself to heretical expressions in my mind that I don't endorse (because they begin to deny the suffering of hell) but which do indeed keep me thinking. he said that even hell is a type of REDEMPTION, through it God redeems one from non-existence. I'm sure he worded it better than that, lol, but I really liked the use of the word redemption.

because it is indeed a type of redemption. it looks to me that this thread has explored the idea that objectively, existence is better than non-existance regardless of subjective experiences. existence is something which is good, non-existence something which is evil. so then, they have been redeemed from that evil by the all Good all loving God... and it would seem that it is an evil which they have merited. they have despised the very purpose that God has given their existence, so it would stand to reason that they have chosen the evil of non-existence. and yet, God redeems them even from that evil.

let me tie this into Mark of the Cross's above misunderstanding... they are in fire, but they do not burn out of existence like it would seem that they would, being in a lake of fire and all. it's almost like the burning bush; shouldn't they burn away into nothingness if they're being treated with fire as the bush should have been reduced to ash? shouldn't they continue to dwindle and dwindle further away into nothingness? but they don't, because God has redeemed them from that and given them eternal existence.

in heaven, though Westerners often approach eternity with a more stoic idea of unchanging eternity, the East would say that we are continually spiraling into a deeper and deeper union with God. if evil were a truly opposing principle, it would seem that in hell one would be continually spiraling further and further out of union with God. but they do not... is hell a stoic unchanging eternity then? I'm not so sure about that... I wonder. not that I think anyone in hell could ever move to heaven, there is an impossible chasm between the two places; but they are in flames and yet are not destroyed by the flames; could it be that there is a spiration that is progressive for those in hell? a redemptive spiration out of the deepest depths of evil? I won't say that there is, for I feel I am now treading on rather dangerous ground. but I do wonder that.

but above all I think it's an amazing thought to think of even hell as being an act of God's redemption. many might hold that non-existence is preferable to eternal punishment, but when one understands the core of the biblical notion that God saw everything He had made and saw that it was good, one shouldn't find it too hard to come to the conclusion that existence in hell is an undeserved good thing that God gives to the damned.

[Mark of the Cross]

[b]Hades in Christianity[/b]
Main article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades_in_Christianity"]Hades in Christianity[/url] Like other first-century Jews literate in Greek, early Christians used the Greek word [i]Hades[/i] to translate the Hebrew word [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol"]Sheol[/url][/i]. Thus, in [url="http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Acts&verse=2:27&src=%21"]Acts 2:27[/url], the Hebrew phrase in [url="http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Psalm&verse=16:10&src=%21"]Psalm 16:10[/url] appears in the form: "you will not abandon my soul to Hades."

[b]Sheol[/b] (pronounced "Sheh-ole")[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup], in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_%28language%29"]Hebrew[/url] שאול (Sh'ol), is the "abode of the dead", the "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld"]underworld[/url]", or "pit".

I'm assuming that Hades is accepted as Hell and not the Greek God of the underworld. One then asks the question how can death and Hades (Hell) be thrown into Hell. The first death is obviously the death of the body. I logically concluded that the second death would be the death of the soul upon which there could be no redemption.


I am proposing this as a question, not as a challenge to the knowledge of people who have far greater training than I.
[sup][/sup]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 November 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1258184612' post='2002557']
Mark of the Cross, the Lake of Fire represents the final eternity of hell, because in the final judgment, all souls (in heaven and in hell) are reunited with their bodies, and their bodies are thrown with their souls into the final lake of judgment. It doesn't make them not exist anymore, nothing in the text indicates that they no long exist; simply that they then exist in the lake of fire. first death did not cause non-existence, nor does second death cause non-existence.

Apotheoun once put this in a way that I really really liked, which actually kind of shifted my whole understanding of hell to a different spectrum in my thoughts (thoughts which were inspired by Apo's statement but I do not here claim that they would be Apo's thoughts on the matter, I'm not sure and he can speak for himself there)... a spectrum which I will admit sometimes lends itself to heretical expressions in my mind that I don't endorse (because they begin to deny the suffering of hell) but which do indeed keep me thinking. he said that even hell is a type of REDEMPTION, through it God redeems one from non-existence. I'm sure he worded it better than that, lol, but I really liked the use of the word redemption.

because it is indeed a type of redemption. it looks to me that this thread has explored the idea that objectively, existence is better than non-existance regardless of subjective experiences. existence is something which is good, non-existence something which is evil. so then, they have been redeemed from that evil by the all Good all loving God... and it would seem that it is an evil which they have merited. they have despised the very purpose that God has given their existence, so it would stand to reason that they have chosen the evil of non-existence. and yet, God redeems them even from that evil.

let me tie this into Mark of the Cross's above misunderstanding... they are in fire, but they do not burn out of existence like it would seem that they would, being in a lake of fire and all. it's almost like the burning bush; shouldn't they burn away into nothingness if they're being treated with fire as the bush should have been reduced to ash? shouldn't they continue to dwindle and dwindle further away into nothingness? but they don't, because God has redeemed them from that and given them eternal existence.

in heaven, though Westerners often approach eternity with a more stoic idea of unchanging eternity, the East would say that we are continually spiraling into a deeper and deeper union with God. if evil were a truly opposing principle, it would seem that in hell one would be continually spiraling further and further out of union with God. but they do not... is hell a stoic unchanging eternity then? I'm not so sure about that... I wonder. not that I think anyone in hell could ever move to heaven, there is an impossible chasm between the two places; but they are in flames and yet are not destroyed by the flames; could it be that there is a spiration that is progressive for those in hell? a redemptive spiration out of the deepest depths of evil? I won't say that there is, for I feel I am now treading on rather dangerous ground. but I do wonder that.

but above all I think it's an amazing thought to think of even hell as being an act of God's redemption. many might hold that non-existence is preferable to eternal punishment, but when one understands the core of the biblical notion that God saw everything He had made and saw that it was good, one shouldn't find it too hard to come to the conclusion that existence in hell is an undeserved good thing that God gives to the damned.
[/quote]
I agree with much of what you have said in your post, but thought I would give a brief response in order to clarify the Eastern Christian position on hell and heaven.

Hell is the communion with God, who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29), experienced by the damned. So, from an Eastern Christian perspective, the damned - like the saints - will grow closer and closer to God throughout eternity. In other words, the saints and the reprobate have the same end (i.e., God), but where they differ is in how they experience that ever-moving communion with divinity (θείῳ, which is sometimes translated as "brimstone," i.e., the divine incense), which is the very joy of the saints and the very pain of the damned.

Finally, it is important to remember that Christianity rejects dualism, and so there is no eternal dialect of good and evil in Christian theology as there is in Manichaeism (or certain other pagan religions), for - as St. Paul indicated - God in the eschaton will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Edited November 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[OraProMe]

How can existence be better than non-existence? Non-existence is nothingness.
I'd rather not exist than exist in Hell.

[Aloysius]

Mark of the Cross, in one sense Hell is "the Abode of the Dead"--Sheol-- which is simply where all who die go (before Christ). thus, the "bosom of Abraham" was in fact in Sheol--the abode of the dead--which is also called "hell" and we say in the Creed that Christ "descended into hell" in this way. but the word hell is also used to refer to "the hell of the damned" which is eternal hell, not referenced in the Creed because it is eternal and from it no one returns.

the abode of the dead--that is, all the dead whose names are not written in the book of life--is thrown into the eternal lake of fire. on the day of final judgment, all who have ever died stand before Our Lord reunited with their bodies; so all those who went to hell are thrown body and soul into the lake of fire, they're all spoken of collectively as "hell"

Apotheoun, good to hear from you... this was an idea of mine I wasn't too sure of, and I had only derived it from a couple brief statements you had made... namely I was concerned that I was going too far in thinking that those in hell would experience an eternal progression as well. glad to hear you concur with that

[Apotheoun]

Evil is the absence of being (i.e., existence). It is a choice of the will (angelic or human) made in opposition to the true good of one's nature.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 November 2009 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1258188149' post='2002563']
Mark of the Cross, in one sense Hell is "the Abode of the Dead"--Sheol-- which is simply where all who die go (before Christ). thus, the "bosom of Abraham" was in fact in Sheol--the abode of the dead--which is also called "hell" and we say in the Creed that Christ "descended into hell" in this way. but the word hell is also used to refer to "the hell of the damned" which is eternal hell, not referenced in the Creed because it is eternal and from it no one returns.

the abode of the dead--that is, all the dead whose names are not written in the book of life--is thrown into the eternal lake of fire. on the day of final judgment, all who have ever died stand before Our Lord reunited with their bodies; so all those who went to hell are thrown body and soul into the lake of fire, they're all spoken of collectively as "hell"

Apotheoun, good to hear from you... this was an idea of mine I wasn't too sure of, and I had only derived it from a couple brief statements you had made... namely I was concerned that I was going too far in thinking that those in hell would experience an eternal progression as well. glad to hear you concur with that
[/quote]
I like much of what you say, but we do differ on a few points.

As I see it, heaven and hell are God, who is the sole end of all that exists in creation.