posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:47 PM
The idea of "Eternal Damnation" as taught by some religious fundamentalists seems highly questionable to me. And I`m not an atheist, mind you. I do
believe there are "bad places" one can go to in the afterlife for transgressing against life. I believe it for the simple reason that ALL religions
and ancient mythologies mention such places. There are variations of "hell" in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Egyptian, Tibetan and Greek
Mythology, among other sources. But none of these traditions refer to hell as being a place where one is eternally
alive and conscious
I mean lets take Hitler for example. I can see how punishing him for a hundred years might seem reasonable and an opportunity to "learn the lesson" or
as a deterrent. Even a thousand years might be conceivable. But after a trillion years of being punished and tortured, what is the point? And after 10
Trillion years its not enough already? Does ANY human deserve that kind of punishment? Apparently 10 trillion years is not enough. Not even a 100
Trillion years. No, it must be "eternal" and "forever", according to certain interpretations of religion. Anyone with even the slightest sense of
would find this idea appalling.
A God for whom 100 Trillion years of fire and brimstone, humiliation and torture is not enough is not a loving and forgiving God but rather the most
cruel and sadistic entity imaginable. How would any such God be worthy of worship?
So I kissed a woman I am not married to. Or I am a Chinese villager who has not converted to Christianity because its unfamiliar to me. Does that mean
I will be eternally tortured in hell? I seriously doubt it.
The idea of eternal damnation seems to be a threat only the gullible would subscribe to and only the sadistic would teach. Btw..as far as I know, the
Bible does not teach eternal conscious
suffering, but rather "eternal annihilation", which would simply be death. So what makes christian
fundamentalists teach of eternal conscious suffering? In what kind of mind-space does a person have to be to believe that?
edit on 2014 by
Skyfloating because: (no reason given)