What are your views on hell?

[barserek]

Doesn’t ultimately exist by itself. It’s a very useful fabrication to keep people compliant and in check.

 

[Accipeveldare]

A description of fire yields (or perhaps requires) a description of heat.

He is saying that the description itself is not hot. Not that it doesnt describe the concept of heat.

 

[Ohana]

I believe it is possible for things to cease to exist as they once did.
Our consciousness could be something produced by our brain. If that stops, there doesn't have to be a separate thing that travels elsewhere.
I mean that the conscious being I perceive as "myself" might just vanish.

On the topic of afterlifes and what happens after. I always thought that instead of heavens and heIIs our brains would get absorbed by the soil and worms. The consciousness of what people perceive as them would go into the soil if buried then the worms and other myriad of creatures wouId take what we thought as us.

Then these worms wouId get eaten by birds and cats and fish and then the dead wouId become the partially then larger animals and then maybe humans and then humans being the apex wouId die and the cycle wouId continue again. There is no heII in my eyes only fragmented consciousness that make up us. Kind of like a circle. The circle of Iife.

After aII you are what you eat : )

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 6:18 AM

Atleast I think there isn't a heII but I'm not completetly sure. Maybe some many peopIe believed in it it became a plane in the astral or immaterial I don't know.

 

[ortizem]

It'll probably hurt. It'll probably be lonely and tormenting.
Beyond scary if anything.
Even Lucifer will suffer as much hence here we are now

 

[Ohana]

On the topic of afterlifes and what happens after. I always thought that instead of heavens and heIIs our brains would get absorbed by the soil and worms. The consciousness of what people perceive as them would go into the soil if buried then the worms and other myriad of creatures wouId take what we thought as us.

Then these worms wouId get eaten by birds and cats and fish and then the dead wouId become the partially then larger animals and then maybe humans and then humans being the apex wouId die and the cycle wouId continue again. There is no heII in my eyes only fragmented consciousness that make up us. Kind of like a circle. The circle of Iife.

After aII you are what you eat : )

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 6:18 AM

Atleast I think there isn't a heII but I'm not completetly sure. Maybe some many peopIe believed in it it became a plane in the astral or immaterial I don't know.

I might rescind the veiw point that consciousness literally gets gained but just that the material version of someone dead dissolves but lives in each still living thing that knows about them or has been affected by them. I don't think it colegermerates in just one new person born like regular reincarnation rather its scattered around but stiII exist somewhat but not fully. So technically not its consciousness exactly.

Its probably not possible to live on exactly as you were after death since it is about change so maybe not even consciousness more like scattered around fragments.

 

[Eldros]

A description of fire yields (or perhaps requires) a description of heat.

Of course, a full description of fire includes its heat, but the description isn't hot in and of itself. What I'm pointing out with awareness is that it's not always aware to describe an action that is conscious.
I don't see why we must assume that it is until we are certain that the abstract structure is enough to create awareness.

And now, leaving arguments aside I remember that back in the day I was watching tons of space opera.
And there was this tv show called Babylon 5.
In one of the episodes, a species of aliens known as soul hunters appears. Besides having significantly large heads, they have the ability to detect when a being is nearing death and would arrive to gather their soul.
It was an interersting idea.
Here was Martin Sheen playing one of the soul hunters

 

[hiraeth]

Personally, I've heard many perspectives on the subject of hell. However, my personal belief on it comes from a book called The Diabolicon. The gist is pretty much that it is basically what you make it to be and that since it is away from god you must make peace in the chaos by yourself. This is pretty much Chaos magick when you think about it knowing that it pretty much makes hell what you believe it is.

Im a helpol,so i just believe in the underworld as a whole.
But i do really like this view!

 

[Nembra]

He is saying that the description itself is not hot. Not that it doesnt describe the concept of heat.

And a physical fire doesn't produce thermodynamic equations. The point is abstract properties are preserved under abstraction.

 

[Accipeveldare]

And a physical fire doesn't produce thermodynamic equations. The point is abstract properties are preserved under abstraction.

Im not arguing for either side, my friend. I am simply clarifying what he meant. I have actually been watching because I am interested in what conclusions you both will come to. Not because im on either side.

 

[pendragon72]

Personally, I've heard many perspectives on the subject of hell. However, my personal belief on it comes from a book called The Diabolicon. The gist is pretty much that it is basically what you make it to be and that since it is away from god you must make peace in the chaos by yourself. This is pretty much Chaos magick when you think about it knowing that it pretty much makes hell what you believe it is.

Personally, I find it hard to justify the commonly-accepted existence of hell as a location souls go to suffer for eternity.

For a being to create this torturous plane where souls go after death, they would have to come up with certain criteria that a person would have to meet to end up there. I know many religions have this criteria already established and well-known, but this brings me to the confusing perspective of: why create hell when you can just create every being in a manner where they would never end up there? Like why even make wrongdoing an option in peoples minds?

I like to use the phrase “hell was created with the intent of sending people there” because a being powerful enough to make an entire spiritual (or not spiritual) plane would also mean that they are powerful enough to eradicate evil in our species. This brings up its own moral issues, like why would you want to worship a being that is quite literally curating an existence of misery for you?

There is the (valid) argument of free will, but this, in my opinion, has flaws as well. What is the point of free will if we’re punished for not performing it correctly? If we’re meant to follow a certain path/faith, why not make that information and belief true to every human being on earth to give them a chance to save themselves? For example, there are some tribes residing in extremely remote areas of the world. They have no access to technology or bibles or other civilizations with knowledge of religion. According to some faiths, their decision to not follow their specific god would give them a one way ticket to eternal damnation. I don’t find that this is fair. I don’t judge those who believe in these deities or worship deities that do this, I just personally think it’s morally incorrect.

For these reasons, I believe that if hell exists it has to be a space curated by our own will. I don’t necessarily believe in hell, I’m more accustomed to reincarnation or the idea of a single place for souls after body death, but hell as an option is either (1) an endless existence of chaos and creation by our own input or (2) actually a place of horrific eternal suffering ran by a soul-capturing deity of some kind.

I really like your personal perspective on hell! Like the idea of it being similar to chaos magic makes a lot of sense to me and seems more plausible than traditional interpretations. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Nembra]

Im not arguing for either side, my friend. I am simply clarifying what he meant. I have actually been watching because I am interested in what conclusions you both will come to. Not because im on either side.

Neither do I consider you an opponent nor would I be any less amicabe if I did. I would consider it a grave moral failure to think any less of someone arguing for opinion other than mine.

A description of fire is certainly hot, because both hotness and fire are themselves descriptions. All objects are, in fact.

 

[Accipeveldare]

Neither do I consider you an opponent nor would I be any less amicabe if I did. I would consider it a grave moral failure to think any less of someone arguing for opinion other than mine.

A description of fire is certainly hot, because both hotness and fire are themselves descriptions. All objects are, in fact.

I understand your reasoning now. Thank you for clarifying.
Also, I would like to note that I have been lurking around your posts for a while now. I enjoy the clarity you bring to certain topics. It is refreshing.

 

[Nembra]

I understand your reasoning now. Thank you for clarifying.
Also, I would like to note that I have been lurking around your posts for a while now. I enjoy the clarity you bring to certain topics. It is refreshing.

Thanks, much appreciated, really. It's kind of an odd place to find oneself unorthodox, frankly.

 

[Accipeveldare]

Thanks, much appreciated, really. It's kind of an odd place to find oneself unorthodox, frankly.

The feeling is mutual lol. I must admit, actually. When i made the original post for this thread i was VERY new to the esoteric currents and, frankly, i just wanted to feel edgy. To this day, i have not even thought about hell or the satanic current in at least two years. But i am still very interested in what people have to say here. It is quite interesting to see how fluid identity is and how much our paths can change over time.

 

[Nembra]

Of course, a full description of fire includes its heat, but the description isn't hot in and of itself. What I'm pointing out with awareness is that it's not always aware to describe an action that is conscious.
I don't see why we must assume that it is until we are certain that the abstract structure is enough to create awareness.

And now, leaving arguments aside I remember that back in the day I was watching tons of space opera.
And there was this tv show called Babylon 5.
In one of the episodes, a species of aliens known as soul hunters appears. Besides having significantly large heads, they have the ability to detect when a being is nearing death and would arrive to gather their soul.
It was an interersting idea.
Here was Martin Sheen playing one of the soul hunters

Anything you can ever know as "fire" is a description. More precisely, an abstract object created by your mind. There's no such a thing as fire being hot that's not an abstraction.
Never seen Babylon 5. Fun idea indeed.

Post automatically merged: Today at 4:58 AM

The feeling is mutual lol. I must admit, actually. When i made the original post for this thread i was VERY new to the esoteric currents and, frankly, i just wanted to feel edgy. To this day, i have not even thought about hell or the satanic current in at least two years. But i am still very interested in what people have to say here. It is quite interesting to see how fluid identity is and how much our paths can change over time.

Interesting thread. People tend to have rather emotional opinions on hell, and honestly it's difficult for me to formulate an ethically neutral take on that. An oddly effective way for some to expose the most vulnerable points of their moral systems, suffice to say.

 

[Eldros]

Anything you can ever know as "fire" is a description. More precisely, an abstract object created by your mind. There's no such a thing as fire being hot that's not an abstraction.
Never seen Babylon 5. Fun idea indeed.

When something is fully described, it does not necessarily mean that the description itself possesses the qualities it indicates.
That's exactly the distinction I'm making with consciousness.
Babylon 5 is also a must-see.

 

[Nembra]

When something is fully described, it does not necessarily mean that the description itself possesses the qualities it indicates.
That's exactly the distinction I'm making with consciousness.

That's actually not necessarily true. A description is an abstraction, and an abstraction with only one-element classes is equivalent to the abstracted set.

Babylon 5 is also a must-see.

Perhaps the time will at some point permit.

 

[Ombriel]

Personally, I've heard many perspectives on the subject of hell. However, my personal belief on it comes from a book called The Diabolicon. The gist is pretty much that it is basically what you make it to be and that since it is away from god you must make peace in the chaos by yourself. This is pretty much Chaos magick when you think about it knowing that it pretty much makes hell what you believe it is.

That perspective from The Diabolicon actually makes a lot of sense when you strip away the religious dogma. If hell is being cut off from the source or the divine, then you are absolutely right that it becomes a place of pure chaos where you have to forge your own order.

Growing up around martial mysticism in Southeast Asia we never really talked about hell as a physical basement with fire and pitchforks. We were taught that hell is a frequency. It is an energetic state of absolute lost sovereignty.

Think about it in terms of energy work. True hell is when your internal battery is completely drained and leaking. You lose authority over your own mind and body. You become a slave to your own obsessions, your traumas, or parasitic entities that feed on your static. If you cannot command your own internal space, you are already living in hell right now while breathing.

 

[Eldros]

That's actually not necessarily true. A description is an abstraction, and an abstraction with only one-element classes is equivalent to the abstracted set.

Being able to describe a thing uniquely is not the same as having its properties.
Just as a description of awareness isn't aware, a description of fire isn't hot/ You're mistaking instantiation for reference.
Being Y is not equivalent to uniquely referring to Y.

 

[Nembra]

Being able to describe a thing uniquely is not the same as having its properties.
Just as a description of awareness isn't aware, a description of fire isn't hot/ You're mistaking instantiation for reference.
Being Y is not equivalent to uniquely referring to Y.

There exists no fire that is not an abstraction of certain set of stimuli. Whatever you think of as "fire" is in this regard indifferent to a mathematical description of how it works. Physical world doesn't have properties, only abstract objects have them. A map and a terrain are both samely abstractions of the same chunk of sensory data, only the second is perhaps more fine.