Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)

Oh, well, in that case, let the sonuvabitches burn.Edited by Aware Wolf, : spelling

But why? Seems to be six in one half dozen in the other, since if they end up in Hell, I'll end up considering that to be appropriate. As long as I get mine, what's the difference?Edited by Aware Wolf, : grammar

It seems like you are trying to have it both ways, although I will admit I am making some assumptions about your position to reach that conclusion; maybe you can set me straight. Let me re-post your paragraph from message XYZ: I take this to mean that you believe that we will not feel regret or sorrow or any other negative emotion from the fact that our (previous) loved ones are in Hell. I further assume that you believe that this is because there truly is no basis to feel those emotions, as opposed to God having taken away our memories or something similar.OK, if my assumptions of your position are wrong, I apologize and you can ignore the rest of my post.However, if this is your position, then I believe you ARE trying to have it both ways. If our heavenly selves know that there is nothing regrettable or sad about loved ones in Hell, then why should our present selves think any different?To look at it from the other angle: if we presently SHOULD want our loved ones to surrender to God and avoid Hell, then that means that their being in Heaven is somehow better than being in Hell. And so if it turns out that it doesn’t happen that way, then that will be a reason for regret.Edited by Aware Wolf, : grammar

Well yes, but what I am saying is that IF the idea that (previous) loved ones are in Hell (or half destroyed and the rest in Hell, whatever) will NOT truly be a reason for regret, sadness, etc., then it is not an outcome that we have any reason to try and avoid. If something is to be avoided, then by definition if it isn't avoided there is justification for regret. I think there is; hopefully your confusion is not just my ability to explain it.