…and this is a 
Eternal injustice
Category: Religion
Posted on: May 7, 2008 9:05 AM, by PZ Myers
Sid Schwab considers the meaning of eternal torment. Even a moment's thought should make anyone realize that eternal punishment, besides being literally unimaginable, cannot possibly be just. Yet this principle is dogma in Christianity — Jesus himself said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment" — and even worse, those who are good and are admitted into heaven are going to be eternally aware of the torments inflicted on their unsaved fellows, and will be going out to witness the punishment of the wicked (according to St Augustine, anyway…I hear he's a fairly highly regarded source on doctrine.)
I suspect that the truly good would be in rebellion against such a tyrant god, but then, we always knew Christianity was a death cult for sheep, that rewards submission to the odious and the unlikely.
I'd add to Schwab's rejection of the principle that it isn't just eternal punishment that is a problem, but the whole idea of eternal life. There can be no such thing. People change all the time, and the I that is here now will not be the same I that could exist in 20 years; my mortality is a part of my being, and removing that would be an event so traumatic and so life-changing that it would produce an identity even more substantially different than the vast revolution I went through 51 years ago, when I gastrulated. Immortality is meaningless and achieving it is impossible.
That's not to say we don't want a long life and will fight off death as long as we can. It's just that life itself represents a kind of incremental dynamism that can't be frozen without destroying it.
Comments
The whole page is italicized now...
Posted by: Nemo | May 7, 2008 9:08 AM
EEEEEk!! Runaway Italics tag. Kill it!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2008 9:09 AM
My whole world is sloping to the right! Will this help?
Posted by: Moggie | May 7, 2008 9:09 AM
And this is why you PZ Meyers and I'm just an undergrad student. =)
"It's just that life itself represents a kind of incremental dynamism that can't be frozen without destroying it."
This quote is going straight onto my list of favorite quotes. One sentence that poetically sums up the fallacy of eternal life. Great work.
Posted by: Chris Riley | May 7, 2008 9:11 AM
Crap. Supplying a lone italic-closing tag in a comment does nothing. Sensible, I suppose.
Posted by: Moggie | May 7, 2008 9:11 AM
No, it's not. You're all hallucinating.
How can it be that even if I catch an error immediately after posting, and go directly to the editor and fix it on the spot, I can still get three comments pointing out the mistake before I can update? I feel like there is a whole host of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tag Nazis hovering over my every word, awaiting even a moment's lapse to pounce.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 7, 2008 9:12 AM
I remember this one from catechism, when we asked the nuns about whether it was fair that we puny mortals were at risk of everlasting punishment. The answer was very simple: God is infinite and eternal. If we offend him, then we deserve to suffer pain and torment forever and ever. See? Isn't that reasonable? (And we good little kids nodded our heads and said "Oh!" and went home to our nightmares.)
Posted by: Zeno | May 7, 2008 9:14 AM
If we are immortal, then why were we *born*? Shouldn't we have existed for all time, like this supposed god? Why didn't this god simply create us in the atemporal world in which he already exists? If he knew how we would behave and whether we were worthy of reward or punishment, why not skip all this earth stuff, and just have us "live" our immortal "lives" in heaven or hell?
Thinking like this makes my brain begin to hurt. They have a name for it: theology.
Posted by: Will E. | May 7, 2008 9:17 AM
"Personally, I've been hearing all my life about the Serious Philosophical Issues posed by life extension, and my attitude has always been that I'm willing to grapple with those issues for as many centuries as it takes." - Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Posted by: Ray Ingles | May 7, 2008 9:17 AM
Is "a host of Nazis" the correct collective?
Shouldn't it be a "krystallnacht" or a "blitzkrieg" or something? A "cesspool"?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 7, 2008 9:17 AM
We should blame Darwin for the typo Nazis. Without evolution they wouldn't exist.
Posted by: Zeno | May 7, 2008 9:17 AM
Swamp Thing encountering Anton Arcane being tormented in Hell, Saga of the Swamp Thing Volume 2, Chapter 5, "Down Amongst the Dead Men," by Alan Moore.
"Hello, Arcane."
"I muh-must look quite a muh-mess... Insect eggs, you know. Huh-hatching, insuh-side me... Very appropriate. Ha ha ha ha... [...] Nuh-no! Wait! Puh-please, before you guh-go...
Huh-how many years have I buh-been here?"
"Since yesterday."
"Yesterday?
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Posted by: J | May 7, 2008 9:18 AM
If we are immortal, then why were we *born*? Shouldn't we have existed for all time, like this supposed god? Why didn't this god simply create us in the atemporal world in which he already exists? If he knew how we would behave and whether we were worthy of reward or punishment, why not skip all this earth stuff, and just have us "live" our immortal "lives" in heaven or hell?
Thinking like this makes my brain begin to hurt. They have a name for it: theology.
Posted by: Will E. | May 7, 2008 9:18 AM
If you are ever particularly annoyed with a hell believing theist then just ask them to explain how heaven works out for someone whose loved one (child, partner, friend, etc) isn't 'saved' - which, lets face it, pretty much means everyone.
How great would heaven have to be for you to put out of your mind the fact that your child or other family member is undergoing permanent torture at the hands(?) of sadistic demons?
I firmly believe that it is this type of question that will crack the resolve of fundamentalists far more than any lists of evidence about evolution or rationalistic science.
Parent in Heaven.
Child in Hell.
Just how heavenly is the Parent going to feel?
Posted by: Sigmund | May 7, 2008 9:19 AM
I would like to point out that Steve DiMilo misspelled Kristallnacht.
The correctionists are everywhere.
Hey, I think I'm getting a better feel for this eternal suffering stuff.
Posted by: Zeno | May 7, 2008 9:21 AM
I have to mention one of Harlan Ellison's stories in connection with this, "I have no mouth and I must scream", in which an intelligent (and insane) supercomputer that comes to rule mankind plays the part of God. One of his best.
Posted by: Geoffrey Alexander | May 7, 2008 9:21 AM
Oops: "Sven", not "Steve". I deserve punishment.
That is all.
Posted by: Zeno | May 7, 2008 9:23 AM
It's just another proof that God is an asshole. Jackass.
Posted by: Michelle | May 7, 2008 9:23 AM
@ #12, I believe the usual answer is that the unsaved people you cared about in life will be erased from your memory, so you won't worry about them. It's a lousy answer, but what do you expect?
Posted by: Moggie | May 7, 2008 9:24 AM
I had to post the quote above because it was too appropriate. But I still must respectfully disagree with the notion that 'eternal life' is a meaningless concept. It's true that "life itself represents a kind of incremental dynamism that can't be frozen without destroying it" but immortality is, kind of by definition, not 'freezing', but continuing that dynamic process indefinitely.
Of course an infinite life is impossible, - that's a limitation imposed by physics as we understand it. But until I get the chance to stand on an airless planetoid in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud and watch the Milky Way galaxy rise over the horizon, don't bother asking me if I still have things to do.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | May 7, 2008 9:30 AM
@#9, #9, #9 .... I beleive an einsatzgruppe of nazis is in common usage, while those prone to more flowery prose prefer a luftwaffe of nazis. However the correct term is a fuehrerbunker of nazis.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | May 7, 2008 9:34 AM
Moggie, its exactly the answer I would expect but it opens the door to repose the question to them. I think even the very religious feel uncomfortable with the 'memory erase' answer. I think we all inherently know that a large part of who we are is determined by our experiences, and friends or family make up a large part of these experiences. Erase these people from our memory and who we are also changes.
Thats not even a scientific point. If you say 'erasing our memory doesn't make sense, it will change or destroy our very personality' I think most theists will understand and will also understand why you want them to provide an alternative answer.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 7, 2008 9:35 AM
Hartman/Skitt/McKean strikes again!
Glad to see Dr Schwab (oddly appropriate name btw) here. He manages to write so engaging and funnily about surgery that I can read him without cringing from sympathy pain.
Posted by: Sili | May 7, 2008 9:43 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 7, 2008 9:44 AM
Obviously no one has read Larry Niven's "Inferno". It gives step-by-step instructions on how you get out of hell once you are condemned.
Posted by: Pineyman | May 7, 2008 9:49 AM
And if one achieves perfect knowledge in Heaven (as I believe many faiths argue), and God's will is perfect, then that makes a kind of twisted sense, as you will realize why God did what He did, and it will all be obvious. Of course, what that means is that currently the saved person is deluded about the worthiness of his loved ones -- he or she should reject them, cast them out as being abominations in God's sight.
Posted by: Tulse | May 7, 2008 9:51 AM
#9, I think we'll have to go with a Stein of nazi's.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Shirley Knott | May 7, 2008 9:52 AM
@#12 Sigmund --
Here's an "answer" to this question. Basically, God's will is incomprehensible, so we shouldn't even try (and we certainly shouldn't try to judge him by his actions)...just wait until we die:
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 7, 2008 9:53 AM
Sid Schwab is one of my heros. He writes about surgical, medical, social, and political issues with a compelling style. Find and read his ode to the liver, for instance.
Posted by: Matt M | May 7, 2008 9:54 AM
Which of course means that it won't be me, anymore, not in any way that I could currently recognize.
Of course, this brings up the great question of not having free will in heaven. If free will is such a wonderful thing, then why wouldn't we have it in heaven (of course, the legend says we do, in that Lucifer chose to rebel)?
Posted by: Pablo | May 7, 2008 9:54 AM
So what about, instead of having your memory of those who are now burning in hell erased, you are simply provided with computer (God) generated simulations of those loved ones such that you never realise or know that they are actually in hell?
Sorry to continue a discussion about such absurdity, but I just thought it was a fun exercise!
Posted by: Chris | May 7, 2008 9:54 AM
Any time someone brings up the whole eternal life thing I can't help but think of acclimatization.
I imagine the first few years (how does one measure infinite time anyway?) I spend in hell will be equivalent to the pain of a hottub after a long, cold day of skiing. The rest of the time I should be able to get used to the idea of swimming in a lake of fire. After all, by definition the pain can't kill me so it can only get better.
(This image of course sets my mind to thinking about my three year old laughing uproariously on his way to his time-out chair. I wonder how long it would take for the population of hell, or heaven for that matter, to become enured to God's power and mount an insurection)
Posted by: Jens | May 7, 2008 9:56 AM
suckersmen.Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 7, 2008 9:59 AM
#29 Chris,
Do you by any chance read Jack (Furry webcomic, currently SFW on the frontpage, but very much NSFW passim).
That's pretty much the depiction of heaven therein.
Posted by: Sili | May 7, 2008 10:00 AM
I've often felt that if people stopped to consider the implications of eternal life, they'd be horrified by it instead of attracted to it. Imagine living countless billions of years, having time to inspect every aspect of the universe in laborious detail a billion-times over, and not yet having blinked an eyelid in the eternity of life you're being "rewarded" with.
I'm convinced that people don't want eternal life, they just want to choose when oblivion occurs. Unfortunately that's not the promise of the religious...
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | May 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Posted by: MPG | May 7, 2008 10:02 AM
I think my goal if I am sent to hell is to try to rise up through the ranks of administration. Get me out of the whole "boiling in the sea of fire" into the role of "hell's angel." I think Satan would appreciate the work I have done for him on earth, and could use a thoughtful person to help run the evil plots.
You may question why I would want to stoop to doing things to harm people, and I agree it's not all that nice, but jeez, would you really expect me to do God's bidding after that bastard sentances me to eternal punishment? Heck no, if I am stuck in eternal punishment, I'd do everything I could to fight the Man, and make it better for me. I'm sorry, under that situation the concepts of "selflessness" and "generosity" go right out the window.
Posted by: Pablo | May 7, 2008 10:04 AM
Wow. I can't remember anything that happened to me before neurulation.
Posted by: Apikoros | May 7, 2008 10:07 AM
Jens (#30) raises a question I thought about as early as first grade. It seems like you could get used to just about anything. It seems like a trivial thing to compare to questions of Heaven and Hell, but, after a long time I finally learned to like tomatoes. In spite of that Hell seemed fairly easy to picture, but Heaven was harder. Was it really fluffy clouds and people in long gowns strumming harps? If we could get used to swimming in a lake of fire, wouldn't we eventually be bored out of our ethereal skulls in paradise?
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | May 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Saw this gem in the comments over there:
If there is no God then our conscience is nonsensical and yours is as valueless as the guy who rapes and murders women and doesn't have a problem with it. Your conscience is telling you that you should do good. But there is a point to it. If you deny God....then there is no point to doing the good that you do.
What in the green fuck is the matter with these people? Seriously...I don't get it. I started to reply there, only to discover that I had no adequate response that would soothe my rage or provide a counterpoint that had any sort of chance of reaching the person. So, I'm ranting here. WTF?
Posted by: Matt | May 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Imagine living countless billions of years, having time to inspect every aspect of the universe in laborious detail a billion-times over, and not yet having blinked an eyelid in the eternity of life you're being "rewarded" with. - Armchair Dissident
You've clearly never appreciated the beauty and fascination of mathematics. So long as my intellectual capacity can be increased without limit, and there's reasonable company available, I'd be happy spending eternity working on it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 7, 2008 10:10 AM
"I feel like there is a whole host of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tag Nazis hovering over my every word, awaiting even a moment's lapse to pounce."
Perhaps that's a taste of eternal punishment. I confess to being an English teacher, but I'm not fond of grammar Nazis either. Life's too short.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | May 7, 2008 10:13 AM
Matt (#38), whenever I read things like that the first thing that always comes to my mind is, "What does it say when some people think they can only be good if they're being watched over and threatened with punishment?" For those people who are apparently so close to going insane and killing the rest of us but are only held in check by their beliefs, I'm actually a little glad they have those beliefs, as frightened as I am of what happens when their little bubble gets jangled. And I'm also glad I don't work with people who apparently require such constant attention.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | May 7, 2008 10:17 AM
Reverend Lovejoy: "See you in hell...from heaven!"
Posted by: andrea | May 7, 2008 10:18 AM
But remember, Christopher, YOU are the immoral one...
Riiiiiigggggghhhhhhhtttttt......
Posted by: Pablo | May 7, 2008 10:19 AM
in fairness, i have to say that i have met one or two christians along the way who struck me as something other than moral monsters and intellectual midgets. people who were surprisingly honest in their thinking and decent in their humanity.
and so far, they have all had one thing in common:
universalism.
this is the view--a minority view among christians--that no one is punished for all eternity. everyone--universally--gets saved. for any sinner, no matter how grotesque, there is a finite n such that they stay in hell no more than n years. for you, it's only three years, for me, three thousand, for hitler, three million. but after some point, everyone gets out of the pool.
these christians have arrived at this view primarily by thinking hard about what is consistent with a loving god, as they take their god to be. (issues of omnipotence also come in: how can an omnipotent god be eternally *thwarted* in their attempts to save a finite mortal? can't be.) and the gospel texts are all open to sufficient wiggle-room that it is not explicitly ruled out by the weight of the evidence.
so: yeah, christians who believe in eternal damnation=sick fuck psychopaths. and the same for their god.
christian universalists: not as bad. they at least have thought about what a loving god could and could not do.
check the wiki-links under 'universalism'. i'm not saying these people are right, or even sane, but their psychosis is at least less blood-thirsty.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 7, 2008 10:19 AM
I've read it a good 10+ times. It's one of my "waiting somewhere" books. Stuck in the Airport. Stuck in the doctor's waiting room.
I don't want to read all those women's magazines like Redbook, Elle and whatnot. I don't want to read People or Time or US News & World Report. Rarely is there a Nature, Scientific American or Journal of Psychology which I would like to read.
So I bring a book. An old, familiar book that I won't be driven to finish later because I already have finished it. And, if I lose my place, so what? I can start anywhere.
And for those who say "but that's boring." Consider them literary chocolates. Chocolate never gets boring.
Posted by: Moses | May 7, 2008 10:23 AM
@#38 Matt --
Stifled by an infantilizing god, they've never grown up. In terms of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, they're still stuck at step 1:
The next step in moral deveopment would be:
These people are unable to see that there are still steps that come after this; they fail to realize that there's anything beyond the pre-conventional stage of morality at all. So they think that the only possible kind of morality besides their blindly obedient God-induced morality is total self-interest. They don't understand notions of rule of law, the social contract, or ethical principles; all they know is that they're children of God, and they feel neither the need nor the desire to grow up.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 7, 2008 10:25 AM
Isn't it equally probable that God would just make a clone of the damned individual to accompany the loved ones in heaven?
Or perhaps the damned person goes to Heaven anyway, yet experiences hell, although he smiles all the time as if he's happy.
When you leave reason behind, there are all sorts of possibilities. :-)
Posted by: Greg Esres | May 7, 2008 10:30 AM
@#41 Christopher Waldrop --
See, this is what I used to think, but more and more I am becoming convinced that their psychopathic immorality is a result of those beliefs. As I said in my #46, they have beliefs that never require them to grow up, and indeed encourage them not to. Maybe some of them would be amoral psychopaths without religion, but I have a feeling the majority would have grown up and developed moral principles of their own like the rest of us, if only they'd given themselves the chance.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 7, 2008 10:30 AM
Kid Bitzer @ #38--check out the web page of Yale philosopher Keith DeRose. He has a long essay on Xtian universalism that give it about the best defense it's possible to have. Which is not to say it's correct [it's ultimately just as ridiculous as every other life-after-death scenario].
Posted by: Tom | May 7, 2008 10:34 AM
Sorry, I meant Kid Bitzer #44--damn numerical keypad. I don't know if Wiki links to DeRose's essay; if not, it should.
Posted by: Tom | May 7, 2008 10:36 AM
It's not the eternity that's the problem... it's the unchangingness. A human could be human for all eternity, so long as events continued to change them.
Posted by: wazza | May 7, 2008 10:38 AM
#50--
don't worry--my 38th clone got the message, realized it was misdirected, and forwarded it to my 44th clone.
who tells me that derose's essays is indeed linked on the wiki page.
get a computer with a web-browser, and you'll be able to discover these things too!
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 7, 2008 10:40 AM
Now what I find monstrous is the idea that people whose only crime is not accepting Christianity without good reason are worthy of everlasting punishment in the first place.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 7, 2008 10:44 AM
This is one of the few occasions in which I must disagree with PZ. Although, as has been pointed out earlier, infinite life is probably impossible given the finite life of this universe, I for one would welcome the chance to live, if not forever, then for a very long time indeed. If, shortly before my biolgical death, I could transfer my personality and memories to a robot, android or even to a virtual reality simulation in the MegaNet, I would do it. The only condition would be that I have the chance of self-erasure if desired. I often find it frustrating that I live at a time in which we know there are so many wonderful things to learn about the universe but I will never know or experience them.
Posted by: SteveN | May 7, 2008 10:44 AM
'It's true that "life itself represents a kind of incremental dynamism that can't be frozen without destroying it" but immortality is, kind of by definition, not 'freezing', but continuing that dynamic process indefinitely.' - Ray Ingles #18
The question Mr.Myers is asking, I think, is what exactly is "continuing" that dynamic process. If the self, in its entirety, changes every time something happens, infinite life would result in infinite changes that would result in an infinitely different self.
Taken to the extremes, I am not the same person I was before I wrote this sentence - though, I'm only marginally so. After 10,000 years of life in this body, I will be less like the me I am now than everyone else alive right now. Does it even make sense to say that that person will be me?
It gets weird when you start considering earthy punishments (returning to the ethics theme). After 20 years in prison, it's pretty safe to say that the person coming out of jail is not the same as the one who went in. It leads me to wonder: at what point are we detaining a person who isn't reasonably the person who was convicted?
Posted by: Jams | May 7, 2008 10:46 AM
Eternal life (consciousness) in "Heaven" is precisely my definition of Hell. Think about it:
No Yesterday from which to have anything remaining uncompleted.
No Today in which to work at completing anything.
No Tomorrow in which to complete that left uncompleted.
No reason to do anything at all since you never run out of time anyway. No reason to do anything at all since everything in Heaven is perfect and nothing needs doing in the first place.
No concept of time at all, actually. Utter timelessness. Utter stasis. Mere consciousness existing forever with no future, with nothing to look forward to, nothing to look back upon, nothing to look at here and now because here and now does not exist, "now" being indistinguishable from "then", and never to be recognizable. "Here" being likewise nonexistent, as distance (displacement; "here" vs. "there") cannot be reckoned without time.
Were my consciousness to be aware of its self in such a timeless and placeless existence would be Hell to me.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | May 7, 2008 10:46 AM
I'd add to Schwab's rejection of the principle that it isn't just eternal punishment that is a problem, but the whole idea of eternal life. There can be no such thing. People change all the time, and the I that is here now will not be the same I that could exist in 20 years; my mortality is a part of my being, and removing that would be an event so traumatic and so life-changing that it would produce an identity even more substantially different than the vast revolution I went through 51 years ago, when I gastrulated. Immortality is meaningless and achieving it is impossible.
That's not to say we don't want a long life and will fight off death as long as we can. It's just that life itself represents a kind of incremental dynamism that can't be frozen without destroying it.
Thanks, Paul.
I couldn't have said it better myself. The real pain is having your life as you know it taken away but still be here to fully appreciate the loss. Damned unfair, if you ask me.
Regards, as always...Charlie
Posted by: Brocken Spectre | May 7, 2008 10:48 AM
Etha: " As I said in my #46, they have beliefs that never require them to grow up"
Let me fix that for you: " As I said in my #46, they have beliefs that require them to never grow up"
I'm becoming more convinced that the underlying pathology in American culture is a refusal to just grow up, since that implies taking responsability - not just for yourself, but for your community.
I took a course with Roy Rappaport on the Anthropology of Religion (I guess that dates me). One of his intuitions from spending time in the mountains of Niugini was that what Americans lacked was the initiation ritual - some woo to smack it into your head that "You're grown up now - you take on the burden for the world", since we appear too dense to figure it out rationally.
Posted by: frog | May 7, 2008 10:49 AM
I remember, as a little kid, the feeling I used to get when thinking about heaven. Living forever and ever in one place. It scared the hell out of me! It made me feel trapped and helpless, and I couldn't understand why nobody else felt that way. Didn't they understand infinity?
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 7, 2008 10:52 AM
A human could be human, but probably not the same person. Who we are changes over time, and at some point one can reasonably say that we no longer share meaningful identity (except in terms of physical continuity) with the person we were before. Derek Parfit covers this issue in his book Reasons and Persons.
If this is true, there is some sense in which it is irrational for "me" to want physical immortality, since that doesn't guarantee psychological immortality -- there may be a person in this body, but after a long enough period it won't be the "me" of today.
That said, I'm willing to take the risk...
Posted by: Tulse | May 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Kid #44's comment suggests a metric for rating punishment in Hell -- the Hitler. If we define one Hitler as being 3.0*10^6 years in Hell, then we get the following:
Hitler 1 Hitler
Kid 1 milliHitler
Osama Bin Laden 200 mHitler*
Average "sinner" 1 microHitler
PZ **
Keith Olbermann ***
---------------
* Converted from Islamic units
** Not applicable as, in fact, no afterlife exists
*** Keith Olbermann is a god
Posted by: Gary J. Bivin | May 7, 2008 10:56 AM
Pablo @#35: there's a flaw in your plan. Satan's plots are only viable for those souls alive here on planet Earth (stipulating that human existence is the only repository of a "soul"; from the Bible we get no clue as to whether "souls" exist anywhere else in this universe on other planets). Christianity teaches that the earth will not survive eternally and certainly we know through science that this is in fact true. One day humans will no longer exist upon the earth, as one day our sun will have expanded so as to destroy our planet.
So sooner or later you're going to be unemployed in Hell.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | May 7, 2008 11:02 AM
As my mother would patiently explain, the punishment is not being burned in a lake of fire, it's being removed from the personal presence of god.
Also, if you do some fancy jiggling about with the Hebrew/Greek (depending on your flavor) you can concoct a doctrine that explains that "lake of fire" is a somewhat inaccurate translation and that what is REALLY means is that fire is the presence of the Holy Spirit who, according to Acts, is represented by a flame. So even in hell, once you accept gods authority the flames of the holy spirit will no longer torment you, though you will never be allowed to elevate to the bliss of communing with god personally. After all, "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess", and all that. I dared not ask if there was also a "lake of doves" cuz that would have been asnwered with a swift smack and a prayer session.
And no, she didn't make this up on her own, this is taught as standard biblical revelation in their particular brand of bible belt fundamentalism.
As for the problems with heavenly boredom, she has an answer for that one too. Her church teaches that the resurrected believers will be given the opportunity to descend to hell and teach their loved ones about god and assist in our knee-bowing. She fully expects to meet me down there one day and resume the bible studies that broke off when I was 18.
They have all sorts of fancy plans for once they get heaven-side. With some additional fancy jiggling they've come up with the notion that there are eternal "cycles" and that eternity isn't just a timeless flat line, but that god has additional plans and revelations for the chosen few. The consummation of this world is just one step in his eternal plan. What comes after all this mess has been cleaned up is yet to be revealed.
No, I don't have references for any of this, so don't ask. But the church they belong to has thousands of members in the US and an equal number, if not more, throughout latin america, asia and eastern europe.
Posted by: BG | May 7, 2008 11:02 AM
@ #54, you would perhaps enjoy the novels of Greg Egan, particularly Permutation City. I'm always reminded of this story when the subject of heavenly eternity comes up, because some of the characters live in a high-fidelity computer simulation, in which they have volitional control over their brain-states. There's no reason to feel bored by a very long life if you can program yourself not to experience boredom.
Posted by: Moggie | May 7, 2008 11:02 AM
Yeah, but I'd have that time at least (although admittedly it is inconsquential in the grand scheme of eternity), and there are always the possibility of other worlds that God could create.
Posted by: Pablo | May 7, 2008 11:06 AM
It's also a heretic answer, if I understand St Thomas Aquinas right.
Thred can haz winz0r, kthxbai.
What and what, respectively???
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Hmmm, sounds like earth...
Posted by: Pablo | May 7, 2008 11:07 AM
The concept of Hell is horrifying. So let's examine the happy prospect of Heaven:
So, let's say it's all true. Good Christian folks, when they die, go up in the metaphysical air for judgment. They are all found guilty, but Jesus bribes the judge for them and they walk. Heaven is wonderful place where they live in the presence of God in mansions set aside for them and there is no sin of any kind.
Mind you, there'd have to be a few changes made in them. Once judged, they stand, theoretically, no chance of going to Hell, so they must have had the capacity for sin surgically removed. Otherwise, there would have to be angelic thought police ready to give an offender the toss for any slip through all eternity. Because, after all, the justification for eternal Hell is that God cannot tolerate the slightest sin.
So, we need to lose the body and all that goes with it. But a spirit being really doesn't need a mansion or streets paved with gold. He/She...IT has no bodily needs, nor has comfort or wealth any value. That which gives pleasure can be misused for sin, after all. No sex...no need for reproduction. No eating or the subsequent messy and blasphemous after effects thereof.
But the mind that is left must be altered, too. All previous knowledge must be erased, for it is worldly and must contaminate the heavenly soul. Memories, too, must go. Can't have someone in heaven grieving for friends burning for all time over in hell. Matter of fact, we need to lose empathy, too, since it would impede concentration to think about the poor, tortured sinners. Free will has to go also, since it is meaningless in the presence of God. Since one can no longer choose to sin, it is no longer needed. Most of the other emotions need to go, too. No one can have bad thoughts in Heaven...they're sins. And one can't be focused on ones self...that's vanity...so all the focus in one's eternal life must be on pleasing God. So, no need for any other sort of joy or pleasure beyond that. Having the capacity for enjoying anyone but God would undermine the focus and leave oneself open to disappointment, which is a no-no in heaven. In fact, the mere presence of other, detectable beings in heaven would be pointless, since they would be insignificant in the presence of God or be distracting.
So, where are we? You're in Heaven. You are a bodiless spirit surrounded by luxury you cannot use and don't notice. You have no knowledge or memories. Maybe you have a name, but you don't care. You are alone with God for all eternity. Your only function...indeed the only function of which you can conceive is to praise him who needs no praises for all eternity.
And none of this bothers you. Because all that you are has been removed to make you palatable to this being who has no need of you. You aren't human any more...you don't even understand the term. You're just a lobotomized soul: a single tiny ember eternally revolving the gigantic star of God.
Congratulations. You're saved.
Steve "Reprinted from my blog" James
Posted by: longstreet63 | May 7, 2008 11:08 AM
This talk of time and space in both heaven and hell is very alarming. I thought God existed outside of time and space? If heaven is being with god, you would have to be outside of time and space. What does it even mean to say eternity? What does it mean to say with?
Posted by: Jams | May 7, 2008 11:08 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 7, 2008 11:15 AM
I've tried asking my uber-xian mom about how she can say she'll never be happy in heaven without her entire family, in the same breath as asking me why I wouldn't want to live in a place like heaven where there's always perfet happiness. The result is typically her in tears praying fervently for my soul to be redeemed.
I used to have panic attacks when I was a kid because the idea of being stuck anywhere for eternity freaked me out so much. It's a relief to know that's not actually something I have to worry about (there are plenty of other things that need worrying, after all...)
Posted by: DiscGrace | May 7, 2008 11:18 AM
Clearly, in order to experience eternity in a finite universe, one must travel at the speed of light (see the Lorentz factor as applied to time dilation). But the only way to achieve this is to be massless, which means that Catholics can't go to heaven: they have mass at least once a week.
Posted by: Moggie | May 7, 2008 11:20 AM
I've always contended that eternal torment is the best place to start when trying to remove the Christ from someone. It rarely does any good though.
The funny thing is that eternal torment may not even be the doctrine taught in the New Testament, but rather universal salvation or annihilation. I've never been able to determine whether or not the material I looked at on the subject was just a bunch of crap invented by an anomalous bunch of Christians, or valid history. The claim is that the earliest churches all believed in universal salvation (which at least makes spreading the "good news" a bit more sensible), that modern translations of the Bible are incorrect, and that the Roman Catholic church squashed out competing afterlife doctrines as it rose to power.
The argument hinges on the translation of the Greek adjective aionios. It is invariably translated as "eternal" in modern English translations of the Bible, but apparently the word isn't even found in ordinary Greek. The root of aionios, aion (we get eon from this), definitely denotes a finite period of time with the length being determined by the context in which it is used (as opposed to our current use of eon which definitely suggests a good long time). Sometimes the noun is even translated as "eternal" (for example, in Revelation what ought to be translated as "age of ages" is translated as "forever and ever"). The defense is that supposedly there is no word in Greek (or Hebrew) that means eternal, and hence aion was used.
Anyway, I find this subject fascinating since it was what ultimately caused my own deconversion. Google aionios for a bunch of information.
Posted by: davidstvz | May 7, 2008 11:20 AM
#70
milton also describes angels as inherently gendered, and i don't believe it caused any concern about his orthodoxy vis a vis anglicanism. (other of his views did).
pl 7, an angel speaking:
Let it suffice thee that thou know'st
Us happie, and without Love no happiness.
Whatever pure thou in the body enjoy'st
(And pure thou wert created) we enjoy
In eminence, and obstacle find none
Of membrane, joynt, or limb, exclusive barrs:
Easier then Air with Air, if Spirits embrace,
Total they mix, Union of Pure with Pure
Desiring; nor restrain'd conveyance need
As Flesh to mix with Flesh, or Soul with Soul.
i believe he is saying that angels have teh awesome sexxors, and no need for birf control neither, but opinions may vary among miltonians.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 7, 2008 11:22 AM
I asked whether my dog would be in heaven with me. And the guy in the black shirt said "no, dogs don't have eternal souls and don't go to heaven." And I became an atheist. It's as simple as that.
Screw the eternal torture bit, who'd want to go to heaven if our non-human friends won't be there? What kind of idiot god would create a creature as wonderful and loyal as a dog and screw up so badly on humans that he needs a torture-chamber for them? Who's got time for an idiot god like that?
Again: for those of you who want the ultimate take-down on how stupid heaven is, you must read Mark Twain's "stormfield's visit to heaven" - which is now available free on project gutenberg.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1044
Twain demolishes the stupid as only Twain can. With such graceful humor that I've heard even the faithful giggling at how stupid heaven is.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 7, 2008 11:22 AM
@davidstvz: For what it's worth, the notes to my Bible says that the word translated as "eternal" can also mean "universal", and that aion is translated as "eternity", "long time", "age", and "world" depending on context.
@kid bitzer: TY
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 7, 2008 11:31 AM