Heaven, increases all feelings to their extreme quality. Hell, decreases all feelings to their minimum quality. So if someone dies feeling sorrow, rage, hate and goes to heaven they’re going to feel all those to their extreme, that is why god creating hell is actually an act of love because he wants us to feel sorrow, hate, rage as little as possible and feel love to its extreme.
Because, without an instrument to incite fear, religion would be useless for the upper class.
The problem of hell is a version of the problem of evil.
It might be worth reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
If it’s too technical, you might try the Wikipedia article, here are a few excerpts:
The logical argument from evil is as follows:
P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
…
If God lacks any one of these qualities – omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence – then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are modern positions that limit God’s omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology) based on free will in others.
…
A version [of the evidential problem of evil] by William L. Rowe:
- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Another by Paul Draper:
- Gratuitous evils exist.
- The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
- Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
It should also be mentioned that most lay people’s concept of hell is radically different than the hell as described in various scriptures. I would be wary of any singular depiction of hell even within a religion, as scripture often has contradicting things to say about hell (with multiple plausible interpretations), and contemporary beliefs about hell are more informed by popular culture than scripture anyway.
Again, I direct to Wikipedia for the different depictions of hell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Good cannot exist without evil, though. And objective morality cannot exist without a law giver. At best, this is a paradox.
I’ve never understood the notion the good “can’t exist” without evil. I think it’s more likely that good can’t be recognized without evil as a basis for comparison. That doesn’t mean good things can’t happen unless there’s evil out there. I think they would just be seen from a different frame of reference.
You’re trying to put emotions into the afterlife and describe nature as a ‘he’. Unless you know of someone going to the other side and reporting back, it’s all just speculation.
I am an atheist and this is still pretty easy to answer:
Your parents probably love you unconditionally, too, that doesn’t mean they didn’t punish you when you misbehaved growing up.
I’m not quite sure where your interpretation of heaven and hell is coming from, but the Christian Bible doesn’t describe them in any way that what you said makes sense.
The idea of punishment is to prevent further misbehaviours, not to throw shit back at the kids. The goal is to teach the proper behaviour.
But hell is supposed to be eternal, and as such there is no evolving from it, making it not a punishment but a torture.
Now if you believe in torturing kids who misbehave just for the sake of making them suffer, that’s something else.
The threat of punishments stop people from doing things. God told Adam and Eve that if they ate that fruit, they will surely die. They did it anyway. Hell exists to discourage us from sinning, yet allowing us free will, still. But we still chose to sin. So we’re damned.
Except the difference is that in this case your parents know literally everything and you are only capable of doing things according to their plan.
So if you misbehaved, your parents already know you would, and also exactly how, long before you were even born, and it’d all be part of their plan.
So… Why are you being punished again?
No parent would ever punish a child for an eternity.
Some would if they could. But then, those are probably not good parents.
deleted by creator
Thus far, I do not think I’ve seen the letter J anywhere in this post so far.
The letter J was invented in the year 1524.
Which means Jesus, Jews, Jerusalem, Jehovah, Justice, Justify, Julius, January, June, and July were all invented either in or after the year 1524.
Until someone tells me how to research those terms before the invention of the letter J, I choose to believe Jesus never existed and was made up in the year 1524.
Edit: While folks are busy downvoting (haha, carry on if you want), nobody has answered my question. How do I research names and words that start with a letter which didn’t exist during the time?
We literally have manuscripts of the Bible that are dated over a millenia before that date. The Bible wasn’t written in English or Latin. The new testament was written in Koine Greek. Jesus’ name is Ἰησοῦς.
Here is the Bible compared to the original text, your requested source of research.
In fact, Jesus name doesn’t begin with J in most languages.
In Arabic, it is Isa. In Chinese, it is Yesu. It was originally “Yeshua” (using latin characters to represent the greek and hebrew)
Yeshua travelled east and became Yesu, then the Y was dropped in some places. Esu to Isa as the vowels warped.
It gained an S on the end and traveled west, would have been pronounced Yesus, as J was pronounced equally to Y… until it wasn’t in English. Kinda like José in Spanish is pronounced like Yosé. So when it was written down, Jesus became pronounced Jesus.
Interesting. Very valid reference link.
Thank you for sharing 👍
Yehoshua.
Also, that doesn’t quite answer how the other words I listed were actually spelled or pronounced prior to the year 1524.
It all seems a bit sus to me, as if someone in 1524 injected a letter into the alphabet just for the sake of altering the historical narrative and making it harder for future generations to learn the truth, however it was written.
You’re making a dumb conspiracy out of nothing.
I was curious after reading your posts, so I looked up the most famous person I know out of history from the period of ancient history with a name starring with “J”. Which is of course Julius.
And I found this, which goes a long way to explain a lot about the shape of letters and how they were used. This was answered on a stack-exchange for linguistic history:
"(https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/posts/27147/timeline)
As others stated, on monumental inscriptions, the name of Julius Caesar would look similar to
IVLIVS CAESAR
However, saying it was “spelled with an I instead of a J” may be misleading, because ‘J’ as a later innovation did not arise from thin air: while ‘I’ and ‘J’ were not distinguished in Roman times, they existed as graphically distinct variants of the same letter, which always looked more like ‘I’ in capitals, but could sometimes look more like a (dotless) ‘ȷ’ in everyday cursive script.
The distinction was originally just a matter of natural variation within people’s handwriting, but in time, a habit tended to form where the first and/or last letters in a word may come to stand out more, resulting in ‘ȷ’ being used more often than ‘ı’ in those contexts, just like a better-defined ‘v’ would stand out more than a more fluidly-written ‘u’. I think this pattern can be observed in a few of the Vindolanda tablets for example. I consider it somewhat natural for the first bit of handwriting to be written more carefully or incisively than what follows.
In the case of ‘ȷ’ (often called the equivalent of “long I” in several modern languages), the distinction may also have been influenced by the standardized classical Roman habit of writing a longer ‘I’ to indicate that it was a long vowel, something they routinely did in inscription too, and which was unique to ‘I’ as the same indication was given for other vowel letters by writing an apex above them, at least when useful to reduce ambiguity. This use, in any case, is distinct from the specific shape and use that ‘J’ later evolved into.
Another letter that often underwent shape/length changes depending on position in Roman cursive was ‘s’, and this distinction also survived into modern times as the long ſ, this time used within words whereas ‘s’ would be used at the extremities. Since this also appears in Caesar’s name in both word positions, we can reconstruct the way his name would typically have been written in Roman cursive by approximating it, at least in concept, with the modern lowercase form
ȷulıus caeſar
Perhaps because words that begin with ‘I’ or ‘V’ in Latin are statistically more likely to use those as the semivowels /j/ and /w/, rather that the vowels /i/ and /u/ which are more common in the middle of words, eventually — but well after Roman times, and partly after the Middle Ages — ‘J’ and ‘V’ established themselves as semivocalic forms, while ‘I’ and ‘U’ remained for the vowels, and since the informal cursive distinction in “glyph length” became systematized as swashes in printing, this was no longer just restricted to handwriting."
This has got to be the absolute best response/answer to my question so far to date. 👍
I wish I could upvote this more than once actually.
Okay. Why don’t people spell it right then?
So much supposed respect for a dude that died around 2000 years ago, you’d figure he would deserve the respect to at least spell his name right…
Because English and whatever language the Bible was originally written in aren’t the same? C’mon man. You have to be going out of your way to be this ignorant.
No no, more like if people really believe in the old literature, shouldn’t they actually study Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc, and actually spell their mystical savior’s name properly?
I’m not into believing in invisible people or people that are supposedly meant to rise from the dead.
Hell, I never even had an imaginary friend.
Christianity isn’t about how you spell God’s name. In fact, as you said, He spoke three different languages. Why would it matter so much to Him if He never made a point about it.
God is not spelled with a J. I was mostly referring to Jesus.
I found a much less clear background/etymology of the letter G.
A lot of people today can barely learn one language. You’re suggesting that an entire religion’s followers learn Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, all 3 in dialects that are 2000 years old at the latest. I’m pretty sure God will accept whatever language people happen to read the Bible in.
That said, you do get so much more depth out of the Bible when you look at the original language. From Eve being made from Adam’s side, not just a rib, to King James hiding that God will protect you from the tyrant. I’d love to dive into the original language more, but I’m far from a linguist.
It’s not like the Bible was translated to English until centuries later when England became a thing. You’re complaining about a letter in an alphabet that wasn’t relevant yet.
Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יֵשׁוּעַ
Greek: Ἰησοῦς
Aramaic: Iēsous
Latin (maybe you’ll like this more?): IESVS
See how we get there?
Did the man ever sign a document, even so much as a clay tablet? So many translations, how would he have written his own name?
Because it wasn’t an uncommon name. It’s exactly the same name as Joshua in it’s original language.
Culture. The translation is so popularised now that the only people who call Him Yeshua are restorationist hippies
Where are you getting this interpretation of heaven and hell from? I’ve never heard anything like it.
I’m a Thelemite, and in our tradition, duality is an illusion. Good and evil, suffering and pleasure, life and death—we see these things as two sides of the same coin, and reaching an enlightened perspective through meditation can show you that they have never been opposites at all, rather a continuum.
What you’ve described is basically a formula of “Heaven is LSD, Hell is heroin” and that doesn’t match up with anything I have experienced, read, or heard before. Without explaining your position more, I don’t really know how to discuss it.
presumably OP is Muslim?
Muslim hell is about feelings?
No idea, tbh - I think you have a good question, I don’t recognize OP’s conception of hell either.
Here’s another one: if evil didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to appreciate good. Does that mean the devil is required for us to truly appreciate god? Shouldn’t we therefore be thankful to Satan?
For me he’ll is a place of our own making. Like, heaven is a state of being we grow into. Like dieting and exercise changes us for the better, commandments are there just to help us grow into a better being that is heavenly (more and more like God). Hell is the state of missing out on that eternal progression. Which means is is always an option available to us, and it doesn’t come from God but ourselves.
The answer is well rehearsed: god works in mysterious ways. If we understood how god thinks, we would be god, but alas, we are not.
I can’t say for sure what religion you’re talking about, so I don’t know much of the religious context for this definition of heaven and hell. My issue with this definition is emotions are so much more complex than “happy is good, sad is bad”. A lot of people who have dealt with depression (including myself) will tell you that it’s far worse to feel nothing at all. I’d much rather feel the sorrow or hate, and have help from God to work through those feelings.
I find the Christian (specifically protestant Arminian, and yes that is my religion) answer to this question much better. Basically, hell is the other option to heaven. Heaven is where God is fully present, so there must be somewhere else for those who reject God to go. That place must be fully apart from God, otherwise he would not be honoring their decision, and so he would not be all loving.
There’s no scriptural references I know of off the top of my head about increasing and decreasing feelings. But if you have some, please share.
Because God is all perfect, so God is all loving, but also perfectly Just. A loving God would set the reward to be to bring His children to him, but imperfect children cannot be in His presence, as God is also perfectly Just, so sin needs to be punished. Because sin transgresses God greatly, it cannot be erased by doing the right thing. We always have to do the right thing regardless. You cannot make a fine for running a red light go away because you stopped at the next three red lights. You need to pay with something above the road- driving. So the payment for our sin is above this world.
God is all loving, so 2000 years ago, he became incarnate as a man and lived as one of us. He ended up suffering, dying and He was buried. He lived a perfect life - the life we should have lived. Yet he died the death we deserved, and descended into Hell for three days. A perfect sacrifice was made. Now, all heaven requires is simply renouncing our allegiance to sin and turning it back to God.
