Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The psychotic sadistic religion of peace;

Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mu6BX1P_DQ

Image

Tell me honestly, if you saw your mother, father, brother, sister, best friend, colleague at work or neighbour being tortured in Hell, would you gloat and laugh at the flames peeling their skin from their bones, as they cry out to you?

If your answer is; “No, I wouldn’t laugh,” then is the Qur’an wrong?
Or isn’t that the real you in heaven? Have you been transformed into a different person than you are here on earth?

The Qur’an says; “We will remove all malice from their hearts.” (7:43) What does that mean when you laugh at the torture of others? When you feel no pity towards family or close friends? Have certain emotions been removed so you won’t flinch but stare blankly and unemotionally? Or worse than that, so you find it pleasurable?

Will Muhammad — the best of creation — laugh at his uncle Abu Talib who protected and tirelessly defended his nephew for years, but refused to renounce the religion of his forefathers? Will Muhammad — the mercy to the worlds — refuse him a drop of water?

After a few billion years of pleasure in paradise will you not pause, even for a fleeting moment, to pity those suffering endless torture?

Apart from the sickening display of delight and shocking lack of compassion presented in this verse, wouldn’t carrying such vindictive hatred — at the very least — diminish your peace of mind? Or is the existence of eternal torture an essential feature of divine bliss in the afterlife?

Is the existence of eternal suffering something God wanted? If not, then is it something he didn’t want? Does the eternal evil of unreconciled souls tortured in Hell represent a failure of some sort? Or did God want evil to remain eternally — within sight of paradise?


FYI, these are the quotes and references as they appear in the video:
  • “Today the believers will be laughing at the unbelievers, watching while reclining on raised couches.” (83:35)

    “Indeed the sinners used to laugh at those who believed. And when they passed them by, they would wink at each other mockingly. And when they returned to their own people, they would return exultantly. And whenever they saw them, they would say, “Behold! These are the people truly astray!” But they had not been sent as guardians over them. So today the believers will be laughing at the unbelievers, watching while reclining on raised couches. Have not the disbelievers been paid back for what they used to do?” (83:29-36)

    “I had a close friend (on the earth), who used to say, ‘what! art thou amongst those who bear witness to the Truth (of the Message)? When we die and become dust and bones, shall we indeed receive rewards and punishments?’ (A voice) said: “Would you like to look down?” He looked down and saw him in the midst of the Fire. (37:51–55)

    “The dwellers of Paradise will call out to the dwellers of Hell: “We have found that what our Lord promised us is true. Have you found that what your Lord promised you is true?” They will say: “Yes, we have!”… (Quran 7:44)

    “The dwellers of Hell will call out to the dwellers of Paradise: “Throw down some water to us, or some of what Allah has provided you with.” They will say: “God has forbidden them to the disbelievers.” (Quran 7: 50)

    “We will remove all malice from their hearts.” (7:43)

    Quote from Ibn Abbas in the Tafseer of al-Tabari on this verse:

    إن السور الذي بين الجنة والنار يُفتح لهم فيه أبواب، فينظر المؤمنون إلى أهل النار، والمؤمنون على السرر ينظرون كيف يعذّبون، فيضحكون منهم، فيكون ذلك مما أقرّ الله به أعينهم، كيف ينتقم الله منهم.

    “The wall between Paradise & Hell will be opened for them, in it are doors so believers can watch the people of Hell. The believers will be reclining on elevated seats watching the ways they are tortured and will laugh at them, because this is amongst that which Allah will gladden their eyes with, how Allah takes revenge on them.”
For more details,
https://medium.com/@hassanradwan51/laug ... 3441539fe5
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Seriously? The sight of flesh burning will gladden their eyes?
The sight of skulls exploding & eyes spitting blood will send them into rapturous laughter?

Reclining on raised couches so they can get a better look?

Are such people the pinnacle of virtue and moral excellence?
The ultimate objective of God’s wise plan?

Is this why God created the universe?

https://medium.com/@hassanradwan51/laug ... 3441539fe5
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas - what you are pointing to - is right.

Not everyone will get it though. You Veritas Aequitas are nailing it, some will get what you are saying, others won't, I personally get what you are saying, and that's all I need to say.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Dontaskme »

There's no such place as peace on earth.

There is peace on the planet Mars or on the Moon, but not on planet Earth. Where there is a mind, there is no peace, it's a place no mind can enter.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Dontaskme »

Religion was born out of humanities refusal to accept the truth of it's being. That truth was that being is alone / all one.

So in it's despair of knowing it is alone forever, it created another in the form of a mirror image, which it believed to be real. It was this reality that it sought comfort and solace in. In other words, humanity is narcissistic, manipulative and very dangerous.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Medium article on Jordanian pilot wrote: In 2015 ISIS fighters put a Jordanian pilot into a steel cage, doused him in petrol and set fire to him. They captured this horrific scene on video as they laughed and cheered. This lasted a few minutes until death brought an end to his unimaginable suffering.
With the Jordanian air force incessantly bombing and thereby burning insurgents in Syria, these insurgents apparently applied the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" to the people bombing them.

The Qisas prefers the payment of monetary compensation to retribution and encourages arresting the cycle of retribution by allowing for such payment ("diyya") in lieu of retribution:
Al Baqara 178: 'Believers! Retaliation is ordained for you regarding the people who were killed. Free versus free, captive versus captive, woman versus woman. Whoever is forgiven by the brother of the slain for a price, let him abide by the custom and pay the price well."
Unfortunately, in this case, the negotiations concerning damage compensation obviously failed, as Jordan refused to commit to putting a stop to their bombing raids. Forgiving Jordan for the bombings was a bit of a problem because Jordan did not even want to stop doing that.

Hence, these Syrian insurgents resorted to burning back the people who burned them first.

Does it help to do that?
In my opinion, it generally does.

The insurgents' retributive solution eventually did discourage Jordan to carry out bombing raids in Syria.

Even though monetary compensation for damage is clearly preferable, it may not always be possible.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:47 am
Medium article on Jordanian pilot wrote: In 2015 ISIS fighters put a Jordanian pilot into a steel cage, doused him in petrol and set fire to him. They captured this horrific scene on video as they laughed and cheered. This lasted a few minutes until death brought an end to his unimaginable suffering.
With the Jordanian air force incessantly bombing and thereby burning insurgents in Syria, these insurgents apparently applied the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" to the people bombing them.

The Qisas prefers the payment of monetary compensation to retribution and encourages arresting the cycle of retribution by allowing for such payment ("diyya") in lieu of retribution:
Al Baqara 178: 'Believers! Retaliation is ordained for you regarding the people who were killed. Free versus free, captive versus captive, woman versus woman. Whoever is forgiven by the brother of the slain for a price, let him abide by the custom and pay the price well."
Unfortunately, in this case, the negotiations concerning damage compensation obviously failed, as Jordan refused to commit to putting a stop to their bombing raids. Forgiving Jordan for the bombings was a bit of a problem because Jordan did not even want to stop doing that.

Hence, these Syrian insurgents resorted to burning back the people who burned them first.

Does it help to do that?
In my opinion, it generally does.

The insurgents' retributive solution eventually did discourage Jordan to carry out bombing raids in Syria.

Even though monetary compensation for damage is clearly preferable, it may not always be possible.
Where is your moral compass, empathy and compassion for the sufferings of others, you're a psychopath or what?

Two wrongs [evils] don't make a right [good].

That Al Baqara 178 is part of the Constitution of Islam indicate that Islam is inherently evil and there are thousands of verses of the 6236 verses in the Quran that are evil laden.
Indeed, as a measurement of that hatred, 10.6% of the Koran written in Medina is about Jew hatred. Using the concept of the German Holocaust as the reference, it should be noted that 6.8% of Mein Kampf is about Jew hatred.
Conclusion: the Koran written in Medina is more filled with Jew hatred than Mein Kampf.
https://www.politicalislam.com/the-good ... st-denial/
Given the inherent evilness above, the religion should be banned since it will definitely induced the naturally 10% of evil prone [150 millions :shock: ] to feast on the evil laden verses. This is so evident!
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:34 am Where is your moral compass, empathy and compassion for the sufferings of others, you're a psychopath or what?
I guess that my opinion is not worse than that of an F16 pilot. In that case, it is your job to press the button. It will burn a lot of people underneath, but so what? Do you really believe that they care?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:34 am Two wrongs [evils] don't make a right [good].
No, no. Disagreed. On the contrary, they often do.

Both holy scriptures, i.e. Bible and Quran, clearly teach that "an eye for an eye" is a principle that works.

Furthermore, I personally consider the principle to be highly effective. You just have to make sure that it does not go on forever. Hence, if there is a possibility to stop the cycle of retribution with the payment of monetary compensation ("diyya"), then we should obviously jump on the opportunity to facilitate this.

In the end, violence is clearly not a goal in itself. Just like an F16, violence is merely a tool, an instrument so to speak, to achieve particular goals. Of course I am opposed to the practice of useless or meaningless violence. This does not mean, however, that all violence would be useless or meaningless. As Carl Herbert Von Clausewitz so beautifully wrote in his seminal book, "Vom Kriege" ("About war"): War is just the continuation of the negotiations but then by other means.

Concerning the case of the Jordanian air pilot, it is obviously regrettable that the negotiations failed. Shit happens.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:34 am Where is your moral compass, empathy and compassion for the sufferings of others, you're a psychopath or what?
I guess that my opinion is not worse than that of an F16 pilot. In that case, it is your job to press the button. It will burn a lot of people underneath, but so what? Do you really believe that they care?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:34 am Two wrongs [evils] don't make a right [good].
No, no. Disagreed. On the contrary, they often do.

Both holy scriptures, i.e. Bible and Quran, clearly teach that "an eye for an eye" is a principle that works.

Furthermore, I personally consider the principle to be highly effective. You just have to make sure that it does not go on forever. Hence, if there is a possibility to stop the cycle of retribution with the payment of monetary compensation ("diyya"), then we should obviously jump on the opportunity to facilitate this.

In the end, violence is clearly not a goal in itself. Just like an F16, violence is merely a tool, an instrument so to speak, to achieve particular goals. Of course I am opposed to the practice of useless or meaningless violence. This does not mean, however, that all violence would be useless or meaningless. As Carl Herbert Von Clausewitz so beautifully wrote in his seminal book, "Vom Kriege" ("About war"): War is just the continuation of the negotiations but then by other means.

Concerning the case of the Jordanian air pilot, it is obviously regrettable that the negotiations failed. Shit happens.
You don't seem to align with with the spirit of Philosophy-proper in this case the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which in a way is an indication of psychopathy [you reflect on that yourself].

The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is,
No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period!

But because humans have relatively evolved from beasts only recently, it is inevitable many humans will commit evil acts of various degrees.
Even because it is something natural, we should not condone it in anyway but condemn it with regret and from there take corrective actions toward the standard.

godelian: "You just have to make sure that it does not go on forever."
That is impossible for Islamic commands.
The fact is Al Baqara 178 and the thousands of evil laden verses in the Quran are supposed to be eternal commands of Allah which can never be changed by humans.

So to make sure it does not go on forever, we must banned that "religion of peace."


Btw, only the Gospels of Christ represent the Constitution of Christianity and nothing else, not the OT, Acts and Epistles which are merely appendixes to the Contract between a Christian and God.
There is no where in the Gospels where violence is commanded, if any it is overridden by the main pacifist principles of 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek' etc.
Any so claimed "Christian" who commit evil is doing on his own accord thus should be personally responsible for their evil deeds.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:59 amBut because humans have relatively evolved from beasts only recently, it is inevitable many humans will commit evil acts of various degrees.
And that's why humans desire to create violent video games and extremely violent horror and porn movies, and of course, lets not forget all the secret child sex trafficking that goes on, all for human selfish gratification and a grotesque need for sexual pleasure.

It's a way of continuing to feed off their beastly desires without anyone getting hurt, except for the children who then go on to repeat the madness of acting out their own childhood trauma's on others, as the one before them did, there is no end to this insanity.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Iwannaplato »

This kind of religious sentiment is disgusting. It really shows very little ability to feel one's way into what eternity would mean, what the suffering of others means and how one would actually feel about this kind of justice after, say, a billion years. Perhaps a few times, lying on that couch, and hearing the screams of someone who tortured you would be somehow pleasant. But even the coldest hearts would start to feel some kind of common feeling after a couple of million years. Or they are the psychopaths and Heaven is a reward for sinners.

I think it is human to wish for revenge. It's not a great trait, but it take a lot of change to now feel it in some form. But eternity and full out torture should wean a fully human person of this quite quickly.

Of course, Christians often express this sentiment, despite there being less scriptural justificaiton for the attitude. When judgment day comes...and you won't be laughing when the devil is......

There's a lot of celebrating in advance in a significant portion of Christians also.

And secular people, of course, are not immune to this kind of hate. But given the eternal nature of religious punishment, the lack of empathy is astounding in that world view.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:59 am The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is,
No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period!
As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Period!

By the way, why do you think that they build these F16 fighter jets in the first place? Because they intend to love their enemies by dropping chocolate cakes from these fighter jets?

All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals. That is why a man must always be ready to attack and destroy enemy targets. Otherwise, you are merely a feminized simp who does not even deserve respect. So, according to the laws of nature, if you refuse to defend yourself, nobody else is supposed to lift a finger for you. On the contrary, at that point, I recommend to simply let the laws of nature take their course.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

godelian wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:59 am The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is,
No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period!
As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Period!
But note, morality by default mean 'to promote good and avoid evil' on an universal basis and if with reference to the almighty it has to be eternal.

If this 'holy' principle [re reciprocation] must be universal and eternal, then, it will lead to the eventual extermination of the human species or a reality of eternal evilness.
Philosophically [re wisdom] an almighty that condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is inherently evil in contradiction to an omni-benevolent god.
In this case, the almighty of Islam which condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" cannot be a default god, thus a false god.
By the way, why do you think that they build these F16 fighter jets in the first place? Because they intend to love their enemies by dropping chocolate cakes from these fighter jets?
As I had stated, the constitution of Christianity is overridingly pacifist which must be independent from the Christians-as-humans, i.e. still evolving as beasts relative to evolutionary times.
It is not the fault of Christianity per se, if SOME or even many Christians do not comply with the terms of the Gospels they are contracted to, e.g. killings of humans, building F16 or WMDs [biological or nuclear] which has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
According to the terms of their contract with God and Christ, the sinners will have to face God with their sins and be punished accordingly.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate the 'contractual terms' of a contract and the non-compliance of the terms?
All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals. That is why a man must always be ready to attack and destroy enemy targets. Otherwise, you are merely a feminized simp who does not even deserve respect. So, according to the laws of nature, if you refuse to defend yourself, nobody else is supposed to lift a finger for you.
Agree to the above because the majority are relatively beasts and living in a dogs eat dogs world since humans first emerge and at the present. I foresee the majority of humans will be beastly [in various degrees] for some time into the future. You seem to be stuck only with the present with no hope of change for the better in the future.
On the contrary, at that point, I recommend to simply let the laws of nature take their course.
NOPE! not on the above.
According the laws of nature, all living things are embedded with the potential to progress and for humans the moral potentiality to more competent morally.

Somehow your thinking is so static and dogmatic.

If you do a thorough research into human nature since humans emerged >200,000 years ago, there is a trend of progress [of pros and cons] but there is also the unfoldment of the moral potentials within humanity.
Even when humanity has evolved and progress to the state with WMDs to exterminate the human species, there is a net-progress.
This is so evident, for example there is not a legal ban in all sovereign nations of Chattel Slavery [not 'chattel'] in comparison to say >5000 -10,000 years ago. Surely you cannot deny this is related to a 'moral' progress albeit still insufficient.
There are trends of moral progress in other types of evil.

Thus instead of accepting the past and status quo to be fixed for the future, we need to find [or at least discuss possible] strategies to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within all humans such that in the future [note 'future'] there will only be rare events of evil acts.
You seem to be stuck with the present only.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by godelian »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:26 am
godelian wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:59 am The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is,
No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period!
As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Period!
But note, morality by default mean 'to promote good and avoid evil' on an universal basis and if with reference to the almighty it has to be eternal.

If this 'holy' principle [re reciprocation] must be universal and eternal, then, it will lead to the eventual extermination of the human species or a reality of eternal evilness.
Philosophically [re wisdom] an almighty that condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is inherently evil in contradiction to an omni-benevolent god.
In this case, the almighty of Islam which condones "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" cannot be a default god, thus a false god.
By the way, why do you think that they build these F16 fighter jets in the first place? Because they intend to love their enemies by dropping chocolate cakes from these fighter jets?
As I had stated, the constitution of Christianity is overridingly pacifist which must be independent from the Christians-as-humans, i.e. still evolving as beasts relative to evolutionary times.
It is not the fault of Christianity per se, if SOME or even many Christians do not comply with the terms of the Gospels they are contracted to, e.g. killings of humans, building F16 or WMDs [biological or nuclear] which has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
According to the terms of their contract with God and Christ, the sinners will have to face God with their sins and be punished accordingly.

You don't seem to be able to differentiate the 'contractual terms' of a contract and the non-compliance of the terms?
All respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals. That is why a man must always be ready to attack and destroy enemy targets. Otherwise, you are merely a feminized simp who does not even deserve respect. So, according to the laws of nature, if you refuse to defend yourself, nobody else is supposed to lift a finger for you.
Agree to the above because the majority are relatively beasts and living in a dogs eat dogs world since humans first emerge and at the present. I foresee the majority of humans will be beastly [in various degrees] for some time into the future. You seem to be stuck only with the present with no hope of change for the better in the future.
On the contrary, at that point, I recommend to simply let the laws of nature take their course.
NOPE! not on the above.
According the laws of nature, all living things are embedded with the potential to progress and for humans the moral potentiality to more competent morally.

Somehow your thinking is so static and dogmatic.

If you do a thorough research into human nature since humans emerged >200,000 years ago, there is a trend of progress [of pros and cons] but there is also the unfoldment of the moral potentials within humanity.
Even when humanity has evolved and progress to the state with WMDs to exterminate the human species, there is a net-progress.
This is so evident, for example there is not a legal ban in all sovereign nations of Chattel Slavery [not 'chattel'] in comparison to say >5000 -10,000 years ago. Surely you cannot deny this is related to a 'moral' progress albeit still insufficient.
There are trends of moral progress in other types of evil.

Thus instead of accepting the past and status quo to be fixed for the future, we need to find [or at least discuss possible] strategies to expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within all humans such that in the future [note 'future'] there will only be rare events of evil acts.
You seem to be stuck with the present only.
In 1521, Luther replied during his trial: If you can show me through scripture and reason that I have erred, I will retract what I have written.
I only deal with moral theorems that are axiomatic from scripture. I am blind and deaf to arguments from other sources.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Laughing at Unbelievers in Hell?

Post by promethean75 »

What I wanna know is why Luther had a diet of worms. Why didn't he eat regular food like everybody else? Was this a religious thing or...?
Post Reply