Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Problem of Hell

**Posted by 884heid** 7/12/2016 1:09 pm

Since most of you are theists and adhere to Abrahamic religions, do you have any thoughts on eternal hell and what it constitutes of? Is it more of a traditional medieval torture chamber in your eyes or do you perhaps allign your views with C.S Lewis and Eleanore Stump? Is the problem of hell as weak as the problem of evil when it comes to classical theism or do you have legitimate concerns about the compatibleness of God (Catholic doctrine as an example) with endless torture of the damned who freely made their choice to suffer? I've personally always had immense problems in accepting everlasting punishment for the damned who couldn't get past natural theology and accepting revelation since reason can't really apply to specific doctrines of revelation.

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/12/2016 1:26 pm

The "problem of hell" is mostly nothing but an inappropriate intolerance to suffering. That said, given the underlying theology it's hard to see how hell as bodily suffering (Dante) isn't merely analogy.

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 7/12/2016 1:26 pm

Some of us are not Christians, but rather philosophical theists.

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/12/2016 1:37 pm

Mysterious Brony wrote:
Some of us are not Christians, but rather philosophical theists.

I'm a non-Christian who has no inherent problem with hell. Reasoning very loosly as a classical Platonist one can easily jusify the thought of something close:

1. The souls of those who are evil are vastly disordered.
2. A vastly disordered soul cannot be in the right relationship with the World.
3. Not being in the right relationship with the World is suffering.
4. The soul is immortal.
5. If death is final, then the state of the soul after death is eternal.
6. Death is final.
7. A state of of eternal suffering is what is meant by Hell.
:. Hell exists.

**Posted by 884heid** 7/12/2016 1:53 pm

He probably meant to state that he is simply a philosophical theist, rather than objecting to the idea of hell being compatible with philosophical theism.

**Posted by 884heid** 7/12/2016 2:45 pm

iwpoe wrote:
The "problem of hell" is mostly nothing but an inappropriate intolerance to suffering. That said, given the underlying theology it's hard to see how hell as bodily suffering (Dante) isn't merely analogy.

Didn't Aquinas hold to a more traditional concept of physical torment? He rejected Avicenna's view of Soul suffering without a body in one of his objections I think, and affirmed a traditional view of ECT.

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/12/2016 2:56 pm

ECT?

But doesn't Aquinas not believe in the bodily ressurection or am I mistaken? As you can tell from my above argument I am likely closer in sympathy to Avicinna, but affiliations aside it is quite hard for me to see how eternal bodily suffering is plausible without making God the miraculous cause of it, which seems contrary to the nature of the body, which ipso facto is not of itself disordered, thus risking a kind of threat to God's omnibenevolence that cannot be easily defended with free will.

**Posted by iwpoe** 7/12/2016 3:30 pm

884heid wrote:
He probably meant to state that he is simply a philosophical theist, rather than objecting to the idea of hell being compatible with philosophical theism.

Also, I understood but I thought that perhaps he was claiming that the main motivation for hell could only be by way of Christianity. That wouldn't be a claim for incompatibility, but a claim about lack of motivating reason. I, for instance, have very little reason to care about the proper form of Mass qua classical theist, though it's pretty clear to me that belief that there is a proper form of Mass isn't *incompatible* with classical theism.

**Posted by 884heid** 7/12/2016 3:34 pm

iwpoe wrote:
ECT?

But doesn't Aquinas not believe in the bodily ressurection or am I mistaken? As you can tell from my above argument I am likely closer in sympathy to Avicinna, but affiliations aside it is quite hard for me to see how eternal bodily suffering is plausible without making God the miraculous cause of it, which seems contrary to the nature of the body, which ipso facto is not of itself disordered, thus risking a kind of threat to God's omnibenevolence that cannot be easily defended with free will.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but Aquinas believed that God will be the sustainer of hell and the saved that get into heaven will joyously watch the tormented suffer. There is a debate on whether Aquinas held the flames to be corporeal or supernatural in Aristotle's sense but I don't think he excluded physical torments from his replies to objections. Though, I've also read that the original Latin description of hell by Aquinas is much more tame than the English translation.

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 7/12/2016 4:00 pm

iwpoe wrote:
Mysterious Brony wrote:
Some of us are not Christians, but rather philosophical theists.
I'm a non-Christian who has no inherent problem with hell. Reasoning very loosly as a classical Platonist one can easily jusify the thought of something close:

1. The souls of those who are evil are vastly disordered.
2. A vastly disordered soul cannot be in the right relationship with the World.
3. Not being in the right relationship with the World is suffering.
4. The soul is immortal.
5. If death is final, then the state of the soul after death is eternal.
6. Death is final.
7. A state of of eternal suffering is what is meant by Hell.
:. Hell exists.

Hi iwpoe,

I should've been more clear, but neither do I have an issue with hell. In fact, we might agree on some things. I think that when you sin then you're "isolating" yourself from that of which is Goodness Itself. Hence, you're living in a deprived state.