The 'stomach ache' of hell is either an arbitrary punishment, or or else, as many Christians believe, oblivion
Those are two options, certainly, but by no means the only two: there are many other theories as that what 'Hell' is. And not all see it as a 'threat', and indeed some would say that seeing it as a 'threat' (or a punishment) is actually dead wrong.
The child's stomach ache is neither arbitrary nor is it a punishment: it is a necessary consequence of over-indulgence and, indeed, is entailed by the way stomachs work.
Similarly, it has been theorised that 'Hell' is the necessary end state of a rational being which follows its own impulses and desires; and, furthermore, that this is entailed by the way rational beings work; that is, it would not have been possible for God to create rational beings, and protect them from the possibility of Hell (while still allowing them to have free will).
When the parent tells the child not to eat all the sweets, they are not 'enforcing what is best' for the child: they are merely informing the child of the necessary and inevitable consequences of their actions. To enforce what is best for the child they would have to actually take the sweets away; to follow the analogy, to enforce what is best for us God would (assuming that it is impossible to construct a rational being that can't take itself to Hell, or a stomach that won't ache) have had to construct a world in which actions had no consequences; but such a world would deny us free will. So Hell, then, is not a threat or an attempt to enforce what is best for us, but a warning.
Now, obviously this theory is incomplete: to be complete it would have to prove that the creation of rational beings with free will who could not end up in Hell is a logical impossibility (just as the task of creating a stomach which will both provide nutrition and be immune to abuse is, if not logically impossible, at least infeasible with current technology), which is a task I don't feel qualified to accept.
It is however, I submit, at least not logically inconsistent, and therefore deserves to be considered.
no subject
Those are two options, certainly, but by no means the only two: there are many other theories as that what 'Hell' is. And not all see it as a 'threat', and indeed some would say that seeing it as a 'threat' (or a punishment) is actually dead wrong.
The child's stomach ache is neither arbitrary nor is it a punishment: it is a necessary consequence of over-indulgence and, indeed, is entailed by the way stomachs work.
Similarly, it has been theorised that 'Hell' is the necessary end state of a rational being which follows its own impulses and desires; and, furthermore, that this is entailed by the way rational beings work; that is, it would not have been possible for God to create rational beings, and protect them from the possibility of Hell (while still allowing them to have free will).
When the parent tells the child not to eat all the sweets, they are not 'enforcing what is best' for the child: they are merely informing the child of the necessary and inevitable consequences of their actions. To enforce what is best for the child they would have to actually take the sweets away; to follow the analogy, to enforce what is best for us God would (assuming that it is impossible to construct a rational being that can't take itself to Hell, or a stomach that won't ache) have had to construct a world in which actions had no consequences; but such a world would deny us free will. So Hell, then, is not a threat or an attempt to enforce what is best for us, but a warning.
Now, obviously this theory is incomplete: to be complete it would have to prove that the creation of rational beings with free will who could not end up in Hell is a logical impossibility (just as the task of creating a stomach which will both provide nutrition and be immune to abuse is, if not logically impossible, at least infeasible with current technology), which is a task I don't feel qualified to accept.
It is however, I submit, at least not logically inconsistent, and therefore deserves to be considered.
S.