on the problem of hell, redux and ramblings
Yeah, see, I can go with the "hell is empty" thing. I mean, as I said and as an aside, I do think religions in general should also look at the compelling evidence that the place translated into English as "hell" in the Bible apparently referred to two different places unrelated to Dante's concept of hell -- the grave, and an earthly pit in the valley of Gehenna that was used for burning (I think) refuse -- but if we're going with the hell thing anyway, I can respect that view much more than any of the others. I could absolutely not, not even in my angriest of moments, not even in my cruelest of mindsets, consign anyone to hell if I had the ability -- not Saddam Hussein, not someone a million times worse, not someone who annihilated the entirety of the human race -- and while "we cannot comprehend the workings of God" and all of that, I can imagine a God who is entirely unconcerned with humankind and what they do to one another (and, if I believe in any god, this is the kind I believe in), but I cannot imagine one who does possess a personal, morally-concerned character that is akin to humankind's yet can also justify making that kind of decision. I know it's a big mental leap, but if I were that kind of personal, emotional God, I'd be so upset that this individual had already visited so much suffering upon my children that the last thing I would want would be to see any more, let alone take pleasure in it -- and a God who actively thought otherwise, at least by human standards, would as you say be evil.
...I started ranting in this comment to leucrocuta and seika on the latter's post on vengeance and the death penalty, and then more thoughts came up, but I didn't want to spam seika's journal, so instead I'm posting them here....
Writing this made me realise that the emphasis the Christian God places on suffering in general, particularly as a panacea for sins, blatantly contravenes -- and seems horribly base in comparison to -- a lot of the things I've been thinking and writing about lately regarding the justness of "countering" suffering by adding more on top. In Christianity, suffering is the equivalent of the Good British Cup Of Tea -- thought to cure all and doled out at the earliest opportunity. The Old Testament Father started out accepting sheep sacrifices before deciding that this just wasn't doing enough to offset the graveness of all mankind's sin, and demanded the ultimate sacrifice: the exquisite torture and death of his own son, the purest being in existence.
In other words, here's the train of logic: "That which you do is so offensive before my sight, grieves and horrifies me so, that the only way I can forgive you for it is to take the one of my creations which is both most perfect and which I hold most dear, and summarily rip it to shreds in the most brutal manner possible in effigy of what you've done to me. There, satisfied now."
Aside from the fact that this sounds more like the logic of a lovelorn teen to me ("I hate myself and the unfairness of this world so much that I want to destroy the things I love so that I can be even mopier! NOTHING IS BEAUTIFUL! *smash*") than a superpowerful being, as I mentioned above, I have a hard time imagining any mature and caring creature who is as personal and humanlike as Christianity suggests responding to the sight of all he loves and has created being laid to waste by wanting to see even more carnage. Yes, putting my beloved son through near-unfathomable suffering, that's exactly what's going to raise my spirits and make me feel like Justice Has Been Served.
Also, I have issues with stuff like this, because... well, I don't think sacrificing your life is the greatest gift you can give. It's probably the most you can give up, save your afterlife if you believe in such, and as such is a very noble thing to give if that's what the situation requires. But it is not the greatest gift, because something is still lost, something is still taken away; a greater gift would be one where you can give your friends all that the sacrifice could have given them, but live as well. That's not just a greater gift to your friends, who probably prefer to see you alive if they're friends in any sense we understand it; it's a greater gift in general, because you have given the gift of life to yourself (or rather, not taken it away from yourself), and the gift of anything that you might have to contribute in future, your unique thoughts and insights, etc., to the greater world. I dislike the implication that giving Jesus' life was the absolute best thing an omnipotent father-son team could have done for the world, that in a realm of limitless or near-limitless possibilities this one was somehow the absolute best, the most right, the most fair. In a world where humans often have very limited power, resources and options, there are sometimes situations where a person sacrificing their life is the best possible thing they can do for the greater good of what they believe in -- but in a situation where the "people" involved can do anything, this should never have to be the case, and the fact that it's made out to be this Wonderful Amazing Thing seems shortsighted and flawed, in my opinion.
And I realise now that in the moral framework I currently hold, I could not in good faith align myself to the idea of a god who behaved in this way.
In other news, a tip for UK gamers and anyone else who can get hold of EDGE magazine where you live (if Kotaku are to be believed, that's people in the US, too) -- if you're a Zelda fan, you may want to grab yourself a copy of this month's issue While Stocks Last. Not only is there some very nifty stuff in the magazine itself -- like the results of their 2006 Game of the Year awards, which should always be good for some controversy, and reviews of games like Yoshi's Island DS, Warioware: Smooth Moves and Viva Piñata -- but it comes with an extremely pretty (and PS3-coffee-table-HUEG) Twilight Princess poster that will look most spiffy on your wall. A lot like this, in fact.
Also, mergle and co., got your card METRIC TON OF SPARKLES, yay! Thanks to everyone who sent us cards this year, including kawakiisakazuki, whose Yoshi did get here eventually. ^^
...I started ranting in this comment to leucrocuta and seika on the latter's post on vengeance and the death penalty, and then more thoughts came up, but I didn't want to spam seika's journal, so instead I'm posting them here....
Writing this made me realise that the emphasis the Christian God places on suffering in general, particularly as a panacea for sins, blatantly contravenes -- and seems horribly base in comparison to -- a lot of the things I've been thinking and writing about lately regarding the justness of "countering" suffering by adding more on top. In Christianity, suffering is the equivalent of the Good British Cup Of Tea -- thought to cure all and doled out at the earliest opportunity. The Old Testament Father started out accepting sheep sacrifices before deciding that this just wasn't doing enough to offset the graveness of all mankind's sin, and demanded the ultimate sacrifice: the exquisite torture and death of his own son, the purest being in existence.
In other words, here's the train of logic: "That which you do is so offensive before my sight, grieves and horrifies me so, that the only way I can forgive you for it is to take the one of my creations which is both most perfect and which I hold most dear, and summarily rip it to shreds in the most brutal manner possible in effigy of what you've done to me. There, satisfied now."
Aside from the fact that this sounds more like the logic of a lovelorn teen to me ("I hate myself and the unfairness of this world so much that I want to destroy the things I love so that I can be even mopier! NOTHING IS BEAUTIFUL! *smash*") than a superpowerful being, as I mentioned above, I have a hard time imagining any mature and caring creature who is as personal and humanlike as Christianity suggests responding to the sight of all he loves and has created being laid to waste by wanting to see even more carnage. Yes, putting my beloved son through near-unfathomable suffering, that's exactly what's going to raise my spirits and make me feel like Justice Has Been Served.
Also, I have issues with stuff like this, because... well, I don't think sacrificing your life is the greatest gift you can give. It's probably the most you can give up, save your afterlife if you believe in such, and as such is a very noble thing to give if that's what the situation requires. But it is not the greatest gift, because something is still lost, something is still taken away; a greater gift would be one where you can give your friends all that the sacrifice could have given them, but live as well. That's not just a greater gift to your friends, who probably prefer to see you alive if they're friends in any sense we understand it; it's a greater gift in general, because you have given the gift of life to yourself (or rather, not taken it away from yourself), and the gift of anything that you might have to contribute in future, your unique thoughts and insights, etc., to the greater world. I dislike the implication that giving Jesus' life was the absolute best thing an omnipotent father-son team could have done for the world, that in a realm of limitless or near-limitless possibilities this one was somehow the absolute best, the most right, the most fair. In a world where humans often have very limited power, resources and options, there are sometimes situations where a person sacrificing their life is the best possible thing they can do for the greater good of what they believe in -- but in a situation where the "people" involved can do anything, this should never have to be the case, and the fact that it's made out to be this Wonderful Amazing Thing seems shortsighted and flawed, in my opinion.
And I realise now that in the moral framework I currently hold, I could not in good faith align myself to the idea of a god who behaved in this way.
In other news, a tip for UK gamers and anyone else who can get hold of EDGE magazine where you live (if Kotaku are to be believed, that's people in the US, too) -- if you're a Zelda fan, you may want to grab yourself a copy of this month's issue While Stocks Last. Not only is there some very nifty stuff in the magazine itself -- like the results of their 2006 Game of the Year awards, which should always be good for some controversy, and reviews of games like Yoshi's Island DS, Warioware: Smooth Moves and Viva Piñata -- but it comes with an extremely pretty (and PS3-coffee-table-HUEG) Twilight Princess poster that will look most spiffy on your wall. A lot like this, in fact.
Also, mergle and co., got your card METRIC TON OF SPARKLES, yay! Thanks to everyone who sent us cards this year, including kawakiisakazuki, whose Yoshi did get here eventually. ^^