PDA

View Full Version : Is it ok to hope anyone is in hell?



BigBadBrian
12-01-2004, 08:17 AM
Is it ok to hope anyone is in hell?
Dennis Prager

November 30, 2004


The death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat raises an interesting and significant question: Is it morally and theologically acceptable to hope anyone goes to hell?

That was my first reaction to the death of the godfather of modern terrorism. But I recognize that many people, including many who share my moral assessment of Arafat, might reject such a reaction, let alone publicly express it. But there is a good case to be made for hoping that Yasser Arafat now finds himself in hell.

In order to do so, three issues need to be addressed:

First, is there a hell? Can rational people believe in such a thing?

Second, if there is a hell, does Arafat merit going there? And can any of us mortals judge a person worthy of hell?

Third, if there is a hell, is it acceptable to hope someone who we believe merits it goes there?

First, is there a hell?

Among those who pride themselves in being what is deemed sophisticated in our time, the notion of hell is either absurd, immoral or both. It is also identified with Christians, especially conservative Christians, and, therefore, the sophisticated feel particularly compelled to reject the concept.

Yet the belief that those who commit evil are punished after death is hardly restricted to Christianity. One of the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith as laid down by the codifier of Jewish law, Maimonides (1135-1204), is that God rewards the good and punishes the bad.

One, therefore, need not be a conservative Christian to believe in some form of hell for the evil. All one need be is a rational believer in a just God. For if there is a just God, it is inconceivable that those who do evil and those who do good have identical fates. A just God must care about justice, and since there is little justice in this world, there has to be in the next. And belief in the next world is also not confined to Christianity. As the Encyclopedia Judaica, the greatest contemporary compilation of Jewish scholarship (edited largely by non-religious Jews) notes in the first sentence under the heading "Afterlife," "Judaism has always believed in an afterlife."

The second question is easily answered. Much of humanity has been adversely affected by modern-day terror. The lives of millions -- virtually all Palestinians and Israelis, for example -- have been terribly affected by Arafat. And there are hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been destroyed or shattered by him. At the same time, other than a few sycophants enriched by some of the billions of dollars he embezzled from the Palestinians, no one has had a better life because Yasser Arafat lived.

Throughout modern history, even terrorists had moral boundaries. Terrorists historically attempted to avoid murdering innocent men, women and children. Arafat, however, made the murder and maiming of completely innocent men, women and children the very purpose of terror and one of his life's major legacies.

Yasser Arafat single-handedly made nihilistic acts of cruelty routine, even respectable. Many people were horrified at the Palestinian slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. But humanity gradually became inured to Arafat-style slaughter. Palestinian and Muslim disciples targeted schoolchildren for death in the Israeli city of Ma'alot and later in the Russian city of Beslan; tortured and murdered American diplomats in Sudan; and Arafat created a society whose only exports were new forms of religious hatred and new expressions of barbarity. Thanks to him, the Palestinian name is identified among people of goodwill with barbarity just as the German name came to be associated with barbarity as a result of Hitler.

If, then, there is a just God, and Arafat was the particularly venal human being described here, the answer to the third question is obvious.

Just as any decent human being would want good people to be rewarded in whatever existence there is after this life, they would want the cruelest of people to be punished.

So, of course, I hope Yasser Arafat is in hell. It means that a just God rules the universe. If you think that is hard-hearted, consider the alternative, that one of the most corrupt and cruel human beings of the past half-century is resting in peace. Whoever isn't bothered by that is the one with the hard heart.

Warham
12-01-2004, 08:19 AM
:D

Cathedral
12-01-2004, 08:28 AM
Nope, we are supposed to pray for those who choose the path to hell in hopes that they repent.

Seshmeister
12-01-2004, 08:36 AM
Hell was a device created by the church to give them money and power over society.

Warham
12-01-2004, 08:42 AM
Or at least many would hope...

Fact is, the Hebrews talked about Sheol and Abraham's Bosom before the church even existed.

Seshmeister
12-01-2004, 08:54 AM
Actually my post wasn't entirely correct.

Hell is being in the second row of an arena at a Sammy Hagar gig surrounded by fat ignorant twats cheering him.

I know and I've been there and I still have nightmares...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Jesus Christ
12-01-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian


First, is there a hell? Can rational people believe in such a thing?

Yes, there is a Hell.

Second, if there is a hell, does Arafat merit going there? And can any of us mortals judge a person worthy of hell?

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. I hath seen Dennis Prager's works and he defends one terrorist while judging another. Such is a very definition of a hypocrite.

Third, if there is a hell, is it acceptable to hope someone who we believe merits it goes there?

See My previous answer.

So, of course, I hope Yasser Arafat is in hell. It means that a just God rules the universe. If you think that is hard-hearted, consider the alternative, that one of the most corrupt and cruel human beings of the past half-century is resting in peace. Whoever isn't bothered by that is the one with the hard heart.

Do not speak for Me or My Father, Mr. Prager. And if ye do not repent of thy arrogance and thy support of terrorism, ye might find thyself as Yasser Arafat's next door neighbor.

In Hell, that is....... :mad:

Jesus Christ
12-01-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Hell was a device created by the church to give them money and power over society.

Not so, My son.....

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in Hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Seshmeister
12-01-2004, 09:56 AM
And who wrote that?

Jesus Christ
12-01-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
And who wrote that?

Luke wrote it. But I said it Myself. :)

Nickdfresh
12-01-2004, 10:38 AM
Modern Judaism defines "Hell" as a state of being. This "state is the separation from God after death, as opposed to Heaven (which is the union with God.) I let him/her pick and choose the company.

Seshmeister
12-01-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Luke wrote it. But I said it Myself. :)

The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century.

Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era') knows all the gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150 CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE, with Iren�us of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Iren�us to be other than ridiculous, we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor.

It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarized (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details.

Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot both be correct - we must ask why real eye-witnesses would have to plagiarize the entire ham-hocks-and-potatoes of the story, contenting themselves with adding merely a little gravy, salt, and pepper. A real eye-witness would have begun with a verse reading, "Now, boys and girls, I'm gonna tell you the story of Jesus the Messiah the way it really happened..." The story would be a unique creation. It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry. Both can be dismissed as unreliable without further cause. We can know nothing of Jesus' childhood or origin!

ODShowtime
12-01-2004, 11:15 AM
I LOVE the picture of Arafat looking surprised with fire around him and the qoute "No 72 virgins?"


HAHAHA I LOVE IT!!!