Answering Problems about Hell

[Zatzat]

God does not propogate falsehoods.

God has a well documented history of doing the very thing you said he doesn’t do.

1 Kings 22:23

2 chronicles 18:22

Jeremiah 20:7

2 theasalonians 2:11

 

[vz71]

God does not propogate falsehoods.

God has a well documented history of doing the very thing you said he doesn’t do.

1 Kings 22:23

2 chronicles 18:22

Jeremiah 20:7

2 theasalonians 2:11

OK, place the verses in their proper context.
As I said, God does not propogate falsehoods.

 

[John_of_Woking]

In a related thread I asked if Catholic theology allowed for an empty hell. The clear answer, as I suspected, is no, but hell could be sparsely populated. Fair enough.

My next question is this… I still have intense reservations about the idea of hell. I can identify these reservations thusly:

1. I cannot imagine a person would deserve eternal suffering. And when I try to conjure such a person up in my mind, much of their badness results from factors outside of their control, such as a poor upbringing or natural temperament. If a lack of faith is the problem, it probably never occurs to a vast number of people to be faithful. If a lack of works is the problem, it probably never occurs to a vast number of people that they ought to do good works. And there are a vast number of people who are neither faithful nor particularly charitable but otherwise not rotten.
2. If, in heaven, I will know that others are in hell, won’t I be sad as long as they are suffering, which is apparently eternally? How can we feast in heaven knowing that others are in such a miserable situation?
3. Would it not be better for, say, those who reject God to be put in purgatory forever, with the option of coming up to heaven? Such a situation is roughly imagined in C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. In that situation, human choice would remain.
4. For some reason, I am having particular trouble at the idea that praying for souls in hell would be useless. I suppose this is a reaction at the utter hopelessness of such a disposition?

At any rate, I would love intelligent responses. Please do not merely quote teachings or verses showing that hell does, in fact, exist, as that is not my question and was well-disposed of in my other thread. Thanks!

—I realized after posting that that I was in Moral Theology and not Apologetics, I apologize to the moderator who will move my post—

I sit here nodding in agreement with all you say:dancing: and then I pick up TAN Book’s book on Hell and ponder the visions of Saints :sad_bye:and then I pick up Scripture and I tremble in terror:bigyikes:. Then I get down on my knees and say “Lord Have Pity on me a Sinner.”

 

[Yorkshireman]

Let’s face it the church didn’t exactly invent the concept of hell. People were frightened by it for thousands of years before Christianity.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell?wasRedirected=true

 

[Yorkshireman]

OK, Why would a loving God inflict himself upon someone that does not want anything to do with him?

That is what hell is…the abscence of God.

Someone chooses to walk away from God, and our loving God lets them have their choice.

Now we’re told hell is being separated from God. The flames of hell were just a tradition. How do we know that people in the future won’t be told that the idea that hell is the abscence of God was just a tradition.

 

[vz71]

OK, Why would a loving God inflict himself upon someone that does not want anything to do with him?

That is what hell is…the abscence of God.

Someone chooses to walk away from God, and our loving God lets them have their choice.

Now we’re told hell is being separated from God. The flames of hell were just a tradition. How do we know that people in the future won’t be told that the idea that hell is the abscence of God was just a tradition.

Who exactly said anything about “The flames of hell were just a tradition?”

How about arguing what is actually written rather then what you wish was written.

I am quite certain the fires of hell are real. And I am certain many willingly walk right into it.

And I would appreciate people not trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Zatzat]

OK, place the verses in their proper context.
As I said, God does not propogate falsehoods.

2 Thessalonians 2:11

**‘Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,’

You can’t spin that one, nor can you claim the ’ context ’ card. God is deliberately interfering with peoples free will so that they will believe a lie.**

1 Kings 22:23

'He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The LORD replied, ‘You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this.’

Spin it however you like…but God is not only using his omniscience to forsee that the deception will be successful, but he is ordering a man to go forth and deceive another.

God is complicit in the propagation of a falsehood.

 

[Zatzat]

I am quite certain the fires of hell are real. And I am certain many willingly walk right into it.

I am quite certain that the fires of hell aren’t real. And I am certain many scare themselves by believing they’re real.

 

[vz71]

Spin it however you like…
God is complicit in the propagation of a falsehood.

No spin necessary.
What you quote came from a vision, it is therefore not to be taken in a literal sense.

 

[vz71]

2 Thessalonians 2:11

’Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,'

You can’t spin that one, nor can you claim the ’ context ’ card. God is deliberately interfering with peoples free will so that they will believe a lie.

1 Kings 22:23

'He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The LORD replied, ‘You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this.’

Spin it however you like…

I am quite certain that the fires of hell aren’t real. And I am certain many scare themselves by believing they’re real.

Oh come now.
You either believe what the bible is telling you or you do not.
Don’t try to tell me the traits of my God in one verse and then deny what the bible tells us in the next post.

 

[Zatzat]

No spin necessary.
What you quote came from a vision, it is therefore not to be taken in a literal sense.

2 Thessalonians is a letter, not a vision, not even a letter of a vision that the writer had, but a letter to the people of Thessalonica.

Now that we’ve pointed out your mistaken belief that 2 Thessalonians was a vision and not a letter, what say you to the scripture that clearly states that God will assure that some people believe a lie?

 

[Zatzat]

Oh come now.
You either believe what the bible is telling you or you do not.
Don’t try to tell me the traits of my God in one verse and then deny what the bible tells us in the next post.

1. I don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
2. Heaven and Hell are a myth created by man.
3. A poster claims that God doesn’t propogate falsehoods. I produce several pieces of scripture where God is propogating a falsehood.
4. Poster claims that I was taking scripture out of context.
5. Poster then claims that scripture was about a vision.
6. I point out that scripture is a letter, not a vision.

I am awaiting a response, as 2 Thessalonians is absolutely not about a vision.

 

[vz71]

Now that we’ve pointed out your mistaken belief that 2 Thessalonians was a vision and not a letter, what say you to the scripture that clearly states that God will assure that some people believe a lie?

No mistake.
You quoted 1 kings, I responded to it.

Now what say I to scripture “that clearly states that God will assure that some people believe a lie?”

Easy. Check your translation. There are idioms of the language used at that time that do not translate into ours easily. One of these is the use of active voice for God’s actions when there is no such activity.

But it does not matter. You see, you have pointed out that you “don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Therefore your search for scriptural proofs towards your false beliefs is folly.

If you do not believe the bible, then you cannot utilize the bible as any type of authoritative source for your opinions and hold to any credibility.

 

[vz71]

1. Poster then claims that scripture was about a vision.
2. I point out that scripture is a letter, not a vision.

This was a mistake as the scripture responded to was also quoted by you thus:

1 Kings 22:23

'He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The LORD replied, ‘You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this.’

I am awaiting a response, as 2 Thessalonians is absolutely not about a vision.

No it isn’t. But that isn’t really the point.

Nor is it the thread topic…hell, and the problems therein.

 

[Zatzat]

No mistake.
You quoted 1 kings, I responded to it.

Now what say I to scripture “that clearly states that God will assure that some people believe a lie?”

Easy. Check your translation. There are idioms of the language used at that time that do not translate into ours easily. One of these is the use of active voice for God’s actions when there is no such activity.

But it does not matter. You see, you have pointed out that you “don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Therefore your search for scriptural proofs towards your false beliefs is folly.

If you do not believe the bible, then you cannot utilize the bible as any type of authoritative source for your opinions and hold to any credibility.

What you fail to understand is that it is of no matter that I am certain the Bible was the uninspired Word written by mortal men, but what matters is that you believe it.

I’ve pointed out a clear contradiction of a claim you made in relation to your God, using your own Bible to prove the contradiction and you’ve responded by…

Not responding.

 

[Zatzat]

This was a mistake as the scripture responded to was also quoted by you thus:

No it isn’t. But that isn’t really the point.

Nor is it the thread topic…hell, and the problems therein.

A poster, in this thread, made a claim that God does not propagate falsehoods. I produced clear and convincing scripture that clearly illustrates that God in fact does propagate in falsehoods…and that is somehow off topic?

 

[Heliotropium]

This statement works, if we’re talking about someone whose choices were clearly between hell and heaven. What about an atheist who for whatever reason is sent to hell? He could not haven chosen to go to hell, because he didn’t believe in it. The only people I can see really choosing hell are those who believe firmly in Catholic faith and commit mortal sins without any intention to repent, and fully believing that these unrepented sins will cause their damnation. I would wager there is not a single person for whom this is true. All Catholics, for example, who commit mortal sins without confessing them either don’t believe the sins are mortal, don’t believe that unconfessed mortal sins result in their damnation, or just never thought about it. Either way, none of these people made a conscious decision to choose hell. They were intellectually lazy, or irrational, or what have you, but these acts are far from a voluntary decision of hell over heaven.

That said, I don’t debate the possibility of someone voluntarily and freely choosing hell, fully understanding the consequences. But I assert this is so rare the vast majority of us do not.

No this works for anyone athiest, catholic, muslim, and etc etc etc. What your ignoring is the clear understanding and belief that no one goes to hell if they did not merit it period. End of discussion. If they are in hell then by there own choices have they sent themselves there.

 

[curlycool89]

2 Thessalonians 2:11

**‘Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie,’

You can’t spin that one, nor can you claim the ’ context ’ card. God is deliberately interfering with peoples free will so that they will believe a lie.**

That’s a worse misinterpretation than I’ve seen Protestants make. First of all, it does not say that God takes away free will (it’s says people may believe after all). Secondly, you’ve made you’re own cooky-cuter religion by taking a passage out of context. What St. Paul is talking about in 2 Thess. 2 is that coming of the anti-Christ. I suspect that it’s similar to the idiom used in Exodus (God “hardened” the pharaohs heart), which was that the people had already chosen to do such things (the pharaoh already hardened his heart, the people already believed the lie) and God simply allowed this to happen

1 Kings 22:23

'He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The LORD replied, ‘You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this.’

Spin it however you like…but God is not only using his omniscience to forsee that the deception will be successful, but he is ordering a man to go forth and deceive another.

God is complicit in the propagation of a falsehood.

Again with the cookie cutting. The section of the Bible concerns the prophet Maiciah telling the king that he saw a vision that an evil spirit had “infected” those prophets. God, being a non-interventionist at this time, simply allowed it to happen (the king was Ahab, who was a wicked man, which was probably the reason God did not intervene).

People in either case are deceived because they don’t understand God. God could simply knock everyone on the head, but more often then not He doesn’t because, well, it takes away part of our free will.

 

[Zatzat]

That’s a worse misinterpretation than I’ve seen Protestants make. First of all, it does not say that God takes away free will (it’s says people may believe after all). Secondly, you’ve made you’re own cooky-cuter religion by taking a passage out of context. What St. Paul is talking about in 2 Thess. 2 is that coming of the anti-Christ. I suspect that it’s similar to the idiom used in Exodus (God “hardened” the pharaohs heart), which was that the people had already chosen to do such things (the pharaoh already hardened his heart, the people already believed the lie) and God simply allowed this to happen

Again with the cookie cutting. The section of the Bible concerns the prophet Maiciah telling the king that he saw a vision that an evil spirit had “infected” those prophets. God, being a non-interventionist at this time, simply allowed it to happen (the king was Ahab, who was a wicked man, which was probably the reason God did not intervene).

People in either case are deceived because they don’t understand God. God could simply knock everyone on the head, but more often then not He doesn’t because, well, it takes away part of our free will.

Thank you for addressing my post. I’ll concede on 2 Kings, as it is a vision. However, 2 Thessalonians is so plainly worded that it can mean only one thing.

 

[vz71]

Thank you for addressing my post. I’ll concede on 2 Kings, as it is a vision. However, 2 Thessalonians is so plainly worded that it can mean only one thing.

Guys…
We are letting one poster derail a pefectly good thread about Hell.

One wonders the motivation.