Talk:Problem of Hell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] A Call for an Expert
I tagged this article because I found the article to be amateurish. Needs better theological treatment. For one thing, Marilyn McCord Adams is a controversial voice in the debate. (An informed acquaintance of mine was less diplomatic, labeling her "a loon.") She is given too much prominence with inadequate balance from mainstream theologians. <>< tbc 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I named Adams not because I wanted to appeal to her authority, but simply because Wikipedia policies require one to cite the arguments that you discuss, otherwise it looks like it's just your own ideas. Her arguments stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of what others think of her.
And I take issue with the idea that we need "theology" here. This is a philosophy of religion topic. Evercat 13:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this article might even warrent being removed, or drastically altered. It (and this page) seem to have turned into a forum for theological discussion, and a chance for people to state what they believe/think plausible. Wikipedia is not meant to be(unless Im wholly mistaken) a forum for the discussion of "has religion X got it wrong?.."
An article posing 'a potential problem' may well be ok, with links to arguments from different sides, but an article that tries to argue it out, and end by asserting one 'logical conclusion' is surely not something that Wikipedia can endorse (without the website having theological opinions..)
Even if we can get experts, then the article will become a place for them to preach what they think is the solution.. if we get one from either side of the line (i.e one saying this is a problem, we shouldnt believe.. and one saying its not.. ) then the article will become a fighting zone, as each continues to add more and more... --TM-77 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move
I'm going to move this article to Problem of Hell in accordance with the general MOS proscription against the beginning titles. --Gareth Hughes 22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I can't do that, because it already exists. So:
- Isn't it the house style not to use article titles beginning with the definite article unless it is in some way intrinsic to it? Move to Problem of Hell. --Gareth Hughes 22:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
oppose I think this is one of those times when the "the' is warranted.I'm convinced... support Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)- Support. "The" as part of the title itself is warranted only if "The" would be capitalized in running text. Jonathunder 02:12, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
- Support move - "The" should only be used if it is an unmovable part of the title (so The Beatles, The Guardian; but Netherlands, National Football League). sjorford →•← 13:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
If this page gets moved, then The problem of evil should also be moved to Problem of evil. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Done this one too. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Child with shotgun
On the "child with shotgun" bit:
- That view, however, presupposes that we as the "child" are responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven, we're just not responsible enough to choose to go to Hell;
This argument is weird. Adams is simply saying that we're too flawed to be given a choice with such potentially negative consequences. I don't understand what you mean about being "responsible enough to choose to go to Heaven". Please elaborate.
- and/or that we don't have enough knowledge right now to choose between Heaven and Hell (an issue that cannot be fully addressed by the argument).
This is mentioned in the passage below.
- Alternatively stated, it presupposes that omniscient knowledge is required to make the "right" choice
How does it presuppose any such thing?
- or that mortality is a test of our knowledge as opposed to which side of our nature we choose to develop under the circumstances of mortal life.
Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument. Evercat 22:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Thanks for explaining in depth why you reverted my changes.
I understand what you mean about making no presupposition about going to Heaven, just that any choice involving eternal destinies could not reasonably be given to ignorant creatures such as ourselves.
However, I disagree with your last point --
- Again, it implies no such thing. Regardless of how the choice is made, it is a choice. That's all that matters for Adams' argument.
The reason I disagree is clear from the definition of "ignorant" and its relation to "knowledge". My point was that Adams' argument is only valid if it indeed would be unjust to judge us by decisions we make based on our knowledge, but it is entirely possible that the "test" of mortality may not be based upon knowledge at all, it may be based upon what we choose to become as a result of how we respond to tests of mortality.
Also implicit in Adams' argument is that we are somehow unprepared for the test by our ignorance. However if God is just, then we must be prepared, otherwise God would of necessity be unjust by giving us an unjust test. So if you believe God exists, and you believe in the justice of God, you cannot also believe with logical consistency that we are completely unprepared.
- Adams argues that our ignorance renders us incapable of eschewing incorrect choices and the corresponding consequences of eternal punishment.
No, she doesn't. She makes the argument that Hell is unfair even if everyone knows what is required. In another analogy, she writes:
- Suppose the powers that be threaten a nuclear holocaust if I do not always put my pencil down no more than an inch from the paper on which I am writing ... Although in some sense I can comply, I am also in some sense bound to slip up sooner or later.
It's clear that knowledge is not the problem. The problem is that it is unreasonable to give such flawed creatures as ourselves any way to send ourselves to Hell forever, whether by conscious choice or merely through the way one lives one's life.
Is it possible that what you really object to is the line above that bit, that reads "so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be" and you're suggesting that there's an alternate way in which the "choice" could be made? Adams' argument clearly works however the choice is made, but I see that this bit could be problematic. Evercat 11:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Separate from the suggestion that one chooses one's eternal fate in life, many fathers of the church believed that upon death a soul will fully understand the good and evil of all its acts during life, and (if sinful) will in fact go to Hell voluntarily because it will deem itself unworthy for Heaven.
A problem with this argument is that it implies that some people are superior to others in God's view and deserve better treatment, which is contradictory with an image of an all-loving God. It also seems to suggest that a possible solution would be to eliminate any possible chance for people to hear about "God's plan" and salvation.
I am removing the 2nd paragraph here because it is a complete non-sequiteur, as far as I can see. Evercat 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
Three paragraphs above in this discussion the claim is made "many fathers of the church believed......," please give citations for this claim as many would be interested to see the evidence.67.65.59.66 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hell in Islam
In Islam (as far I know) Humans in Hell can work off their debt to God and can then gain entry to Heaven. This should gain a mention in the above article if it can be properly sourced, as Muslims believe in Hell as much as Jews and Christians. -- 203.11.225.5
- Interesting, sounds similar to the second chance doctrine. Can you find a Koran verse? Evercat 09:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I did a little bit of research on google and I found just the opposite:
- Verily those who reject faith and die rejecting - on them is Allaah's Curse and the Curse of the Angels and of all mankind. They will abide therein: their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their lot (2:161-162)
- Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their Penalty will be one that endures (5:37)
- The unbelievers shall endure forever the torment of Hell. The punishment will never be lightened, and they shall be speechless with despair (43:74)
[edit] Rewriting a sentence
The article is fairly well written, but I take issue with this sentence:
Three possible ways to do this (while maintaining a belief in God) are the doctrines of Annihilationism, where Hell is seen only as oblivion without consciousness, Universalism, where everyone is saved, without exception, and the Second chance doctrine (or Escapism), where even after one has been sent to Hell, one can still accept God and be saved. This would seem to deny the story Jesus told about Dives and Lazarus.
Unfortunately, this betrays a grave misunderstanding of the Dives and Lazarus saying. This saying of Jesus was not a "story" but a parable. It was not intended to be taken literally, and even if it were, the word translated "Hell" in the parable is "Hades," referring to Sheol - totally unrelated to Gehenna, the punishment-Hell referred to in this article. None of Jesus' parables were intended to be interpreted literally. There is really no good way to resolve this other than to excise the statement from the paragraph.
[edit] Lewis quote misinterpreted?
As i was reading this article (which does come off as amateurish), i was confused by the interpretation of the C.S. Lewis quote. Here it is: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
The article says "On the latter view, which seems suggested by Lewis, those in hell can get to heaven if they choose to accept God." The Lewis quote does not imply that "in the end", a person can effect his free will to escape hell. It is saying that you can either choose God's perfect will for your life, or you can choose to live your life apart from God. And in the end, God will say "very well - you did it your way. Have a big slice o' hell."
[edit] needs work, or will be deleted
this article uses many lay assumption on the steretypical nature of hell ignoring alternative views. Also, it just is not encyclopedia worthy at this point and may be deleted if serous work is not invested immediatly -ishmaelblues
[edit] See also
I removed First War in Heaven and Areopagitica from See also, as they have nothing to do with this article. — coelacan talk — 07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Denying the assumptions"
I have removed from the article the following section as it seems to refer to content that is no longer present in the article - at the very least it does not seem to make sense in the points it raises.
"For those who believe the traditional doctrine of Hell is unconvincing, and believe that claims 1 and 2 are incompatible, the only course of action is to deny one or both of them.
The first claim can be denied by rejecting the existence of God (atheism), or of a God sufficiently powerful or loving to prevent people from being consigned to Hell.
The second claim can also be denied. Three possible ways to do this (while maintaining a belief in God) are the doctrines of Annihilationism, where Hell is seen only as oblivion without consciousness, Universalism, where everyone is saved, without exception, and the Second chance doctrine (or Escapism), where even after one has been sent to Hell, one can still accept God and be saved. Some also assert in denial of claim 2 that the only "torture" in Hell is that of separation from God — that separation from God is the embodiment of pain itself and hence that it constitutes infinite torture in a symbolic sense (cf. John 3:19-20)." GoldenMeadows 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Red herring?
Hi.
I saw this thing:
"Also, if God is omnipotent, then he could quite easily generate far more evidence of his existence than he does. If he really wanted everyone to believe, why would he not leave any physical evidence of his existence (a Christian would claim that this would make it impossible to determine who has faith and who does not. An atheist, however, may claim that this is just an attempt at hiding the fact that God does not exist)."
Should this be removed? It seems like a non sequitur and red herring. This has little if any connection to the problem of Hell. At no point does this argument, which attempts to disprove the existence of God, involve Hell at any point. This seems to belong more on Existence of God or Arguments against the existence of God. I'd like to discuss this to see if it should be removed, and if so to get approval to make the edit. 74.38.35.171 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article makes no distinction between Venial and Mortal sin
Though some extant Christian theologies make no distinction in type and degree of sin or in culpability, that is certainly not true all of them and especially is not true of the older traditions of Christianity. That disagreement within the different Christian traditions over such issues as salvation (by faith alone or by faith and works) and either eternal (hell) or temporal (purgatory) punishment are glossed over in this article in an attempt to present a simple and easily debunked strawman 'Christian' position on hell only serves to illustrate the articles irreparable bias. Wikipedia should continue to strive to be an objective source of information and not a repository for anti-Christian apologetics. This article should be deleted.
-
- I disagree. The so called problem of hell, e.g eternal punishment for a finite crime for a soul that was made imperfect and was brought into existence without its permission, has long troubled people. If you read the article carefully the issue does not revolve around the severity of punishment for a particular class of crime, e.g distinctions between mortal or venial sins, but rather what people see as the injustice of eternal punishment for any crime, no matter how mortal in degree. Rather than seek to suppress the article because it challenges your faith why not point out the flaws in these arguments with good citations that clearly justifies hell as a doctrine ? GoldenMeadows 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
