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

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Paddington' date='14 November 2009 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1258257259' post='2003045']
Would anybody here prefer to be in Hell to non-existence?
[/quote]

I don't think I would. Some of the ideas in this thread strike me as rather strange though I can't really put my finger on why...

[LivingStone]

[quote name='Paddington' date='14 November 2009 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1258257259' post='2003045']
Would anybody here prefer to be in Hell to non-existence?
[/quote]


It would seem that I should atleast prefer to be in Hell than to non-existence because my subjective viewpoint should be in conform to the objective reality that "it is better to exist than not to". I wouldn't think that my subjective experience should 'overrule' the objective reality. Atleast if we are able to intellectualize this matter, I can recognize the objective reality and order my subjective "preferences" thus so.



Al or Apo, I agree with the philosophy that you use, but could you elaborate on:
1. the subjective good (not wanting to go to Hell) vs. the objective good (it is better to exist than not to), their relationship, and whether the two should be ordered together or not.
2. The two scriptures found at the beginning of this topic that states "It was better for the traitor of the Son of man that he should never have been born"? Would we interpret this from an illative sense or something funky?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='14 November 2009 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1258238980' post='2002873']
I could never understand how that worked with things like the suffering caused by natural disasters. Personal sin is the absence of good in humans, but what about something like Katrina? If you believe in objective good and evil then you'd have to believe that the suffering caused by Katrina is evil. But how does that fit in with your concept that evil is simply a lack of good?
[/quote]
a lack of good or a twisting of good. rain is good, water is good, people are good. everything that existed amidst the Katrina disaster was something which was good being twisted towards a bad purpose.

the point is that evil has no existence. it is true that evil things happen, because the things which actually exist (and are thus good) are twisted towards disordered ends.

I would indeed prefer to be in hell than to not exist; because just as God loves me, I love myself. Anyone who truly loves themself would prefer to be in hell than to never exist.

I think Christ's words were a Semitic hyperbole, but I also think they can be understood in a different way. while I would prefer to be in hell than to not exist, if you asked me if I would prefer to never have be born or to betray Christ, I would say that I'd rather never have been born than betray Christ. it would be better to have never been born than to betray Christ, not because of the end result of the betrayal; for it is better to be in hell than to have never been born; but because it is a greater evil to betray Christ than to not exist. ie, in terms of the means by which one goes to hell, it'd be better to never be born than to engage in those means.

I don't know how clear I'm making this, so one last statement to try to sum it up: it's better to never have been born than to betray the son of Man, but it's not better to have never been born than to be punished for betraying the son of Man. it's not the state of punishment Judas received but the very fact of the act itself that makes it better for him had he never been born.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 November 2009 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1258266631' post='2003146']
a lack of good or a twisting of good. rain is good, water is good, people are good. everything that existed amidst the Katrina disaster was something which was good being twisted towards a bad purpose.

the point is that evil has no existence. it is true that evil things happen, because the things which actually exist (and are thus good) are twisted towards disordered ends.

I would indeed prefer to be in hell than to not exist; because just as God loves me, I love myself. Anyone who truly loves themself would prefer to be in hell than to never exist.

I think Christ's words were a Semitic hyperbole, but I also think they can be understood in a different way. while I would prefer to be in hell than to not exist, if you asked me if I would prefer to never have be born or to betray Christ, I would say that I'd rather never have been born than betray Christ. it would be better to have never been born than to betray Christ, not because of the end result of the betrayal; for it is better to be in hell than to have never been born; but because it is a greater evil to betray Christ than to not exist. ie, in terms of the means by which one goes to hell, it'd be better to never be born than to engage in those means.

I don't know how clear I'm making this, so one last statement to try to sum it up: it's better to never have been born than to betray the son of Man, but it's not better to have never been born than to be punished for betraying the son of Man. it's not the state of punishment Judas received but the very fact of the act itself that makes it better for him had he never been born.
[/quote]

This I have no problem with and is probably right. It was the earlier discussion of hell as a type of redemption or some such thing that is beyond my understanding at this point.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 November 2009 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1258266631' post='2003146']
a lack of good or a twisting of good. rain is good, water is good, people are good. everything that existed amidst the Katrina disaster was something which was good being twisted towards a bad purpose.
[/quote]

You see that doesn't really sound logical to me. It makes far much more sense to me to see rain, water, people as neutral rather than objectively good and then being distorted into something evil.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='15 November 2009 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1258283258' post='2003173']
You see that doesn't really sound logical to me. It makes far much more sense to me to see rain, water, people as neutral rather than objectively good and then being distorted into something evil.
[/quote]

I think it depends on how involved you believe God is in our daily lives. If He just created us and then left us to fend for ourselves then that's one thing, and you're point would make more sense (at least to me). But I think God plays a bigger role in our day to day activities and our natural world as well. God created the rain and the snow, the sun and heat etc etc. And since God created all these things and "saw that it was good"(Genesis) I think it makes sense to view these things themselves as good.

Then we need to take into account when these good things go out of hand (i.e. Katrina, rockslides, avalanches, blizzards, etc.) Since God created the snow and the rain why would He stay neutral when the storms occur? What reason does He have for bringing on such storms? The first example we have is the great flood. One could view this event in a natural way and just say $h!t happens. But I don't see that the act of a loving God at all. I couldn't imagine a loving God who just sat back and watched all these people die from such events for no reason whatsoever. Now, since we have the great flood as an example, it makes more sense to me, to say that He uses such events for a purpose, whether that be punishment or to remind us of something or whatever.

Of course He will never bring such a catastrophic flood like the great flood again, as He promised He wouldn't. But I don't think there's any reason to say that He would never do anything again, even though it be on a smaller scale. It would seem to me to be more loving for God to have a purpose for allowing these events, than to just say it's all neutral and that what happens, happens for no reason.

Edited November 15, 2009 by goldenchild17

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 November 2009 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1258244437' post='2002908']
Are you certain that natural disasters are an effect of the fall? I'm pretty sure that the dinosaurs went extinct because of a "natural disaster" long before God created man.
[/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 November 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1258245847' post='2002919']
Did death exist before the fall of man? Did dinosaurs die? Think on that.
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 November 2009 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1258247363' post='2002942']
Dinosaurs certainly died...
[/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 November 2009 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1258247607' post='2002946']
Did death exist before the fall of man?
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 November 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1258248065' post='2002956']
Human death did not exist before the fall.
[/quote]


[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 November 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1258248100' post='2002957']
Death did not exist before the fall of man.
[/quote]


[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 November 2009 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1258248279' post='2002961']
That is the common modern way of understanding the scriptural texts, but the Church Fathers often assert that the corruption present in nature, which is experienced by animals as well as men, was also caused by the ancestral sin, and that man - as the priest of creation - has the duty to offer creation back to God in order for it to be sanctified. What are we to make of these patristic teachings?
[/quote]



I had a discussion on death in nature with a theologian a few months ago. It is obvious in Scripture and Tradition that [i]all [/i]death entered the world because of the Fall, not simply death for mankind. All of creation fell because of our Fall.

The theologian I was speaking with came to the conclusion that the effects of man's sin pervaded all of time and space, and wasn't limited to the time after the actual event.

KofC is right, btw; natural disasters are the natural effects of our sin. When we rebelled against God, nature rebelled against us. If we hadn't sinned, we would also not die in things like tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Edit: Also, I've always assumed it would be better not to exist than to be in Hell, but it's not something I'm sure of.

Edited November 15, 2009 by aalpha1989

[Guest Jon]

Yup, blame it on God --chastisements (for whatever reason) it's all punishment from God...yup.

That is exactly the line of thinking that satan relishes and "Now look, I have them thinking [i]You[/i] did it -they didn't think Your suffering and dying for them was enough -those stupid mortals! They are still blaming You and not me." With diabolically joyful laughter...

[Aloysius]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='15 November 2009 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1258283258' post='2003173']
You see that doesn't really sound logical to me. It makes far much more sense to me to see rain, water, people as neutral rather than objectively good and then being distorted into something evil.
[/quote]
even if all things were neutral, the nature of 'evil' is still up to question. 'evil' is not a positive reality, it does not really exist. good is powerful, evil is nothingness. even if all things were morally neutral (which is contrary to the account of Genesis, for God saw everything and saw that it was good), evil would still be nothing more than a corruption of those neutral things while good would be those things existing as they ought to exist.

the idea of evil as a positive reality is absolutely repugnant to me, because it gives evil a power that it should not have and sets it up as if it has some power. it does not, it is powerless in the face of ultimate goodness; it cannot create or exist, it must use already created things against their purpose; it must twist good powers for its own ends and as such remains forever a crippled force destined to lose to goodness. a house divided against itself cannot stand

[Varg]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='13 November 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1258091028' post='2001981']
being "unexisted" like that terrifies me. sure, no pain, but nothing else either.
[/quote]I don't find the idea of non-existence terrifying. Like Mark Twain once said, I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 November 2009 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1258266631' post='2003146']
a lack of good or a twisting of good. rain is good, water is good, people are good. everything that existed amidst the Katrina disaster was something which was good being twisted towards a bad purpose.

the point is that evil has no existence. it is true that evil things happen, because the things which actually exist (and are thus good) are twisted towards disordered ends.
[/quote]

"Twisting" exists. You think twisting is an objective good or that it doesn't exist or what?


[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 November 2009 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1258266631' post='2003146']
I would indeed prefer to be in hell than to not exist; because just as God loves me, I love myself. Anyone who truly loves themself would prefer to be in hell than to never exist.
[/quote]

[Paddington]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 November 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1258248279' post='2002961']
What are we to make of these patristic teachings?
[/quote]

Today is a red letter day.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='15 November 2009 - 10:07 PM'timestamp='1258283258' post='2003173']


[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 November 2009 - 05:30 PM'timestamp='1258266631' post='2003146']
a lack of good or a twisting of good. rain is good, water is good, people are good. everything that existed amidst the Katrina disaster was something which was good being twisted towards a bad purpose.

[/quote]


You see that doesn't really sound logical to me. It makes far much more sense to me to see rain, water, people as neutral rather than objectively good and then being distorted into something evil.
[/quote]
I must confess that I have to change sides here and agree with OraProMe and say that I have difficulty with this concept. It could also be said that floods clear away pollution and control over population. Wether something is good or bad depends on a number of factors. Controlling over population is good, but to do it through natural disaster which eventuates when no controls are put in place is a cruel way to do it. Family planning is much better and keeps the Catholics happy. So katrina is actually natural and neutral. The resultant death and suffering was really more like bad management as far as population control and building your house on the rock not on the sand. The greatest evil comes into it where land developers were forcing large populations to build inferior housing in low flood prone area's. I don't see natural disasters as evil even though the result can inflict great suffering. It's when that suffering is intensified by man's greed that it becomes evil

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Jon' date='14 November 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1258195439' post='2002574']
I hope this link works it's very related to this thread.

[url="http://www.completerestorationinchrist.org/reasons-not.html"]http://www.completer...easons-not.html[/url]

This is just for discussion, I'm not saying I agree or not, thanks.

Here is a sample of the [u]last paragraph[/u] to see if it interests anyone:

Thank God that the wages of sin is not eternal torture, for if it were then our Lord Himself would need to be tortured
forever in order to deliver the human race. Can you begin to see how ridiculous that teaching ( eternal torture ) is?
-In conclusion, let us summarize the reasons that the teaching of eternal torture is to be discarded as false … It is not true
… / The Bible does not teach it … / It goes against the character and nature of God … / It declares the cross of Jesus
Christ as a failure … / The majority of the early church did not teach it … / The scriptures teach the salvation of all men … /
It points to a victorious Devil, and to sin as triumphant over God … / It is unjust … / It produces immature converts who are
motivated to serve God out of fear rather than love … / The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture …
-It has been my privilege to serve all who have taken the time to read this daily devotional. May the Father give you the
spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him! Remember … GOD IS LOVE! HE LOVES ALL! GOD IS ALL-
POWERFUL! HE CANNOT FAIL! HE WILL NOT FAIL! HE IS …
-THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD!-
[/quote]
That does seem to have flaws in it. If you say that eternal torture is the wages of sin and therefore Jesus would need to suffer for eternity to take them from us then the alternative of death (non existence) would mean that Jesus would need to die permanently and totally. On the logic of the paragraph since Jesus only died temporarily and did not suffer permanently this would give credence to what Aloysius and Apotheoun are claiming.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Apotheoun]

A man who is reprobate is damned because of his personal failure to actualize the virtuous capacities present within his nature, but although he has not personally lived a good life (i.e., because he failed to will the good during his earthly sojourn), he nonetheless remains naturally good. Now if God were to allow the natural good present within this reprobate man to be destroyed, it follows that God Himself would commit sin, for the good must endure, i.e., it cannot be allowed to be overcome, because it is the divine principle within the created nature of man that makes [i]theosis[/i] possible. God, if He allowed anyone to be destroyed (i.e., to fall into non-being), would be allowing His own corruption, which is impossible.

God is the savior of all mankind, and not merely the savior of some, but how each man experiences this gift of salvation is determined by his own free will choices, for he can either recapitulate virtue by likening himself to Christ, or he can choose to live a life of vice and sin, and bring about his own eternal damnation.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Apotheoun