Thought Experiment: Hell or Oblivion
This is a made-up eschatology/afterlife. I'd ask that we not get into how/why it isn't correct in any sense of that word. Instead, ponder and respond. Here are the parameters, again, hypothetically speaking:
--Christianity is true to the extent that a literal Heaven and Hell exist, and that salvation was possible.
--Matthew 7:22-23 is in full effect, though, to the most legalistic degree possible, and as a result Heaven remains relatively empty ("Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.)
--Coincidentally, a version of Psalm 88:12 still applies ("Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark? And Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?")
--For the sake of this experiment, "land of forgetfulness" means absolute oblivion -- an utter ceasing to exist in any sense of that word.
--For the vast majority of damned souls, an ultimate choice is given: Hell or Oblivion
Which would you choose? Any particular reason why?
ETA: the idea for this thread came to me, obtusely enough, from reading things in the God and Existence thread.
--Christianity is true to the extent that a literal Heaven and Hell exist, and that salvation was possible.
--Matthew 7:22-23 is in full effect, though, to the most legalistic degree possible, and as a result Heaven remains relatively empty ("Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.)
--Coincidentally, a version of Psalm 88:12 still applies ("Shall Thy wonders be known in the dark? And Thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?")
--For the sake of this experiment, "land of forgetfulness" means absolute oblivion -- an utter ceasing to exist in any sense of that word.
--For the vast majority of damned souls, an ultimate choice is given: Hell or Oblivion
Which would you choose? Any particular reason why?
ETA: the idea for this thread came to me, obtusely enough, from reading things in the God and Existence thread.
Comments
I also would rather be even tormented by God than have nothing to do with Him, even if it is painful forever.
(Arguably that’s kind of suggesting wanting something to do with God, which in my mind means that ultimately one would not be in Hell.)
For those who love God, arguably hell would be preferable, as you’d still exist to know he exists, and to go on loving him, though in hell. Which you could not do if you did not exist.
Maybe that’s why it’s impossible to be in hell if you love God.
I would imagine it rather impossible to love God if you are in Hell.
I am hoping not to be a damned soul. I don't believe that we have a choice. If we are not saved, it's oblivion.
This is probably a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Regardless, he’s a good model to follow.
I don't think so. He seems to be a poster child for staying in an abusive relationship to me.
A couple of days ago Mrs. The_Riv broke her foot and toe. Having a tender constitution as far as injuries/blood goes (there was no blood in this case, but a terribly displaced digit and radical swelling and discoloration) I became nauseated, and momentarily passed out. I came to pretty quickly, having dropped from the edge of the bed to the floor, and despite being drenched with sweat was perfectly fine after a moment or two, and was able to handle everything just fine from there. But, in those unconscious moments I was completely gone. I had tiptoed into oblivion. I can't describe it, because there were no discernible it to it. All I know is that for a minute there, I wasn't. And like @KarlLB's invocation of where we are before we're born, if the "after" is like unto it, I'll absolutely take it.
(plus there is the old joke 'most of my friends will be in hell so I'll end up with them'.)
I see the difficulties with each of the three positions (ETC, Conditionalism, Universalism) but I think Universalism can certainly hold it's own on purely exegetical grounds and wins hands down on wider philosophical grounds. I know there was a thread about it, but it's such a hard issue to debate, as we bring so much of our own baggage.
I wish people would at least read Bentley Hart's book on the subject, and especially his meditation on freedom, where he (IMO) dismantles the argument that God would AS PART OF LOVE (?????) create beings capable of turning finally to evil (and it would seem prone - since A&E fell before they got pregnant). As has been well said by others, that whole argument proves that Jesus was not truly human.
It's this desire to make sure that we are in the driving seat, and that we, not God, control whether or not we are part of his people, that bedevils the whole discussion. Once made aware of the true nature and limits of human freedom the choices are between Predestinarian Calvinism and Universalism. I used to be the former, but openly admit that my character has always come late to the idea of compassion. I well remember as a JW looking forward to seeing all the dead people after Armageddon. Yes, there was something missing, as there is in all who look forward to seeing the torments of the damned. But I'm getting there.
I admit Conditional Immortality (my DBs belief) or Eternal Punishment, but hey! Hell's not such a bad place after all (pace CSL) can be believed by normal people. Maybe they bring some sort of a attenuated-gospel.
Sorry if I’m dim.
To come to the mind experiment, if God gives me the choice between eternal torment or oblivion, I would have to choose the latter. Most of us have an instinctive dread of oblivion, but it can't hurt once you get there. I only hope that if God were to decide I'm not qualified for the eternal life, He would just leave me dead. The idea that He would resurrect people to judgement and then allow them to experience the second death is right up there with the most gruesome of ideas Christianity has come up with.
Since the thread starter wanted to avoid a thread-jack, I've started my own.
Yes, I see that. It reminds me of Woody Allen 'I'm not aftraid of death I just don't want to be there when it happens '.
I don't connect with God in this life as far as I'm aware.
Hell for me. While, as per another thread, I have no emotional feeling of love, I believe, and, somewhere deep down, I hope, want to be where God is (And I write this as someone who believes he will be on the wrong side of the Judgement).
I realise this may sound appalling, horrific, despairing... to some but I can but be honest. Apologies if I shared too much with that comment and have concerned anyone. I am not meditating on eternal torments or anything like that (maybe that might get me moving!); I just plough on as best I can. I'll stop there.
Unless is Hell run by Dantean, Lovecraftian horrors like Stephen King's Mother? Don't they ever get bored with an endless Bosch landscape? Wouldn't they rather be loved? I'd certainly rather worship them than any God who allows them in His 'absence', that we impose upon ourselves by asking questions.
We condemn ourselves to Hell.
Exactly, it's all our fault, and there's nothing God can do about that. Love would of course. Love would take full responsibility. Especially for never having shown Their hand.
Are you angry with God because you don't think God exists? Or because God hasn't made Godself apparent to you on your terms? Or both? I don't think the question of fault arises here.
I'm not angry with an entity that I know does not exist. It hasn't made itself apparent on anyone on rational terms.
If you don't think the question of fault arises here, then our putting our fear of ourselves, whatever that is, in ourselves, by our agency, is not our fault. Or God's.
Uh huh.