But that saying, authored by Milton in Paradise Lost, is ascribed to Lucifer/Satan. Not exactly a fountain of wisdom and good judgement.
Also, Milton wasn't particularly orthodox, but in conventional Christian theology Satan is not said to rule in Hell- he suffers with the rest of us.
In an absolute sense, though, it would only be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven if the status of a servant in Heaven was worse than that of a ruler in Hell. Status is relative, but not only relative to the other participants in the study - it's relative to the entire population. I'd prefer to get $10 and have one neighbor get $20 than $8 and $5, because the wealth of millions of people establish the price of goods to me, not one person getting a little more. In a world where a million people get $0, I get $10, and someone else gets $20, I'm relatively wealthier than if a million people still got $0, I got $8, and my neighbor got $5.
Yeah, it might be more economically rational to seek to get $8 million if the entire world was going to get $20 million if I didn't take the option, but then there's the old saying "a rising tide lifts all boats..."
> "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."
Ironically, that quote from Paradise Lost is spoken by the character Satan and is intended to deceive his fellow fallen angels into believing being condemned to Tartarus after losing their revolt isn't so bad, even though it is, quite literally, the depths of Hell.
On the other hand, considering the topic, maybe it's rather apropos instead.
And thus the classic joke (told poorly by the first source I could copy):
"""
Satan offers incredible wealth to a man in exchange for his soul. The man replies, “B-b-b-but, won’t I have to go to Hell?” Satan says, “Oh, don’t believe what you’ve heard, Hell isn’t that bad. Here, take a look.” And it’s all cocktail receptions and long lazy lunches at fancy restaurants. So he sells his soul. Later, when he dies, he goes to Hell, and sure enough, it’s all flames, pitchforks and eternal agony. The man protests to Satan, who replies – “Oh, that was our summer program.”
"""
It's what John Milton wrote about in Paradise Lost: To serve in Heaven or to rule in Hell. Milton backed the republicans during the English revolution, and saw his beloved revolution be usurped by the Cornwall dictatorship, and ultimately the restoration of the British monarchy. He had to flee for his life and was effectively banned from all public life. Whereas he used to serve in prestiges jobs, at the end of his life he was marginalised, broke and blind. Survivorship-bias gives a wrong impressions of rebels, most end on the outskirts of society. Milton dictated the verses of Paradise Lost to a scribe, as he put it, to justify the ways of God to Men. Substitute an all-powerful God for an all-powerful government, and it get a hole new meaning. IMHO it's still one of the best poems in the English language. There is a wise lesson here, I don't like it, but I can't say it's not true.
> In this case, selling your soul is just a sin, a pretty bad one, but still a sin. In Catholicism and some Protestant traditions, you will enter into a state of Purgatory, (or purgatory-like phase) after death where you are cleansed of sins.
Catholicism does not teach that you will necessarily enter Purgatory; if you are unrepented, into the eternal fire you will go. This isn't because Satan owns your soul, but because you rejected God, who will not force you to be cleansed against your will.
That's John Milton's Paradise Lost, from the point of view of Lucifer:
Farewell happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
Fine. Then, when we arrive in hell because this person took us there, it should follow him all the rest of his days that he was too Pollyannish about the consequences of his own designs.
> We can’t know what heaven is like at all so it’s likely that whatever we think of as heaven is actually much more applicable to some kind of hell.
Your comment reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Henry Valentine's eternal punishment is to always get what he wants. At first he thinks he's gone to heaven, it takes him a month of always getting everything he wants to realise he's actually been damned to hell.
Speaking as a Catholic, the eternity of hell is based on your willingness to be a monster rather than serve the one who is the source of all good. Which is as horrible an opinion as one could have.
In an absolute sense, though, it would only be better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven if the status of a servant in Heaven was worse than that of a ruler in Hell. Status is relative, but not only relative to the other participants in the study - it's relative to the entire population. I'd prefer to get $10 and have one neighbor get $20 than $8 and $5, because the wealth of millions of people establish the price of goods to me, not one person getting a little more. In a world where a million people get $0, I get $10, and someone else gets $20, I'm relatively wealthier than if a million people still got $0, I got $8, and my neighbor got $5.
Yeah, it might be more economically rational to seek to get $8 million if the entire world was going to get $20 million if I didn't take the option, but then there's the old saying "a rising tide lifts all boats..."
reply