T
theistgal
Guest
Really now? Because in another thread on the Forum today, I read the following description of the pains of Hell from someone claiming to be a Catholic:
So which is it - physical pain or self-inflicted misery?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Of course. To bring children presupposes that we endorse this difference.
“child” is the operative word. Loving parents accept the fact that they will be unable to do this when their children are adults.
If your freedom were curtailed I’m sure you would object strongly.
I’m sure your parents would not treat you as a child when you are a mature adult.
OT and NT!
Even if that were true the majority are not always right.
There is no reason to suppose the Christians you have met are representative of the majority of educated Christians. In the 4th century St Augustine observed that the exact nature of hell is speculative.
Haven’t you enjoyed something that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth (both literally and metaphorically)? It often happens with human relationships…
A false deduction from my statement. If we live for ourselves self-love brings us misery. If we live for others we also live for ourselves because love brings us happiness.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I hope your parents are more loving than that, Oreoracle.
If you became addicted to a harmful drug, would it be good to make sure you didn’t feel the pain it caused? Should your parents protect you from that?
If you made a girl pregnant, would it be good if your parents didn’t mention it, or encouraged you to put it all behind you? Should your parents tell you to ignore your guilt?
Perfect love admits pain as necessary to growth. A sick man needs to get a shot at the doctor’s office, even though it hurts. Pain is hardly as big of a deal as we usually make it out to be, although I acknowledge that some people experience tremendous pain in their lifetimes.
If my parents offered to keep me from pain, I would refuse vehemently. Pain is a good and useful thing in my life, and in the lives of most people on this earth.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
God, as he is described in the Bible, is not unable to do this. God could make it possible for me to develop without suffering.
If sacrificing my freedom means happiness and not suffering, I’d be more than willing. The only reason I desire freedom in the first place is because the idea makes me happy. God could snuff out this desire in a heartbeat without me ever knowing.
I mean, don’t we sacrifice our freedom for happiness and security when we become a citizen in a society? Few people are angered by citizenship.
Right, because they know they have to choose between forcing me to live a secure existence and allowing me to take my chances in order to have fun. Again, God doesn’t have to make this choice. He, being omnipotent, can have it both ways.
Whatever you say, Tony.
The OP was only directed at the majority. It was them that I wished to question. In fact, the OP explicitly stated that this only applies to the majority of Christian denominations.
So my time in Hell won’t be any worse than an average day as a mortal on Earth?
My apologies. Your statement seemed to imply something else because of how it was placed.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
From the Catechism:
“1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin **descend into **hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
(bolded by me)
I can understand the Bible having symbolic/figurative/metaphorical language, but the Catechism explicitly states that souls in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell. Last I checked, descent is a physical activity that entails movement…
** (Am I the only one who finds it funny that even the Catechism fails to capitalize “hell?”)
EDIT: I forgot to mention: if Hell is a punishment, how can it dish out punishments? The Catechism says that the souls “suffer the punishments of hell.” This all seems to imply that Hell is a place where one is punished.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I really don’t know how you reach that conclusion. Do you mean God could instantly create persons
who have proved by the way they have lived how much they love Him and other people?
Is a zombie capable of true happiness?
I doubt that very much. It is not just the idea but your enjoyment of freedom that makes you appreciate its value.
The desire would disappear and so would the joy of being free. Your life would be incalculably impoverished.
There is a vast difference between freedom and free will.
Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. The world is out of God’s control to the exact extent that it is under our control…
In that case I shouldn’t be answering the question. My mistake!
I don’t know why you’re so pessimistic! If you do choose that option it will seem rather longer than a day on earth…
No need to apologise. Sometimes my excessive zeal for brevity makes my statements unnecessarily cryptic…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Take your pick! I know which is more logical…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is the truth is good or is have human beings invented its value?
Would you prefer to be a bacterium?
If man is a rationalizing animal Mark Twain is rationalizing that man isn’t a rational animal! In other words his theory is self-destructive!
Is there any evidence that life just is and that form doesn’t really exist? Or is it simply a belief?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Do you really think they meant “descend into” literally? Come on. It’s not like hell is under the earth, like the uneducated masses in the dark ages believed (and the Church did not). They obviously didn’t mean that, and a metaphorical reading of “descend into” is quite believable. Consider the earlier passage in the Catechism:
(Bold mine)
It is called a state, not a place. (Places are capitalized; states are not) I rest my case.
D
Detales
Guest
Truth, equatable to God, never changes. Also, “An olive, whether you like it or not, is known by its distinctive flavour. So is Truth.”- Kenneth G. Mills. I like that one. The value of Truth is in self revelation, yet another reason it is said: “Gnothi Seauton.”
“Would you prefer to be a bacterium?” I think it is too late, lol! And no, but that made me smile.
“If man is a rationalizing animal Mark Twain is rationalizing that man isn’t a rational animal! In other words his theory is self-destructive!” In other words, he proved his point even by that interpretation.
“Is there any evidence that life just is and that form doesn’t really exist? Or is it simply a belief?” That LIFE IS doesn’t necessitate form, but clearly it is our experience that form is included. Even if you just willed your words to appear on my computer screen, that would still be a form, though it is in the thought realm. And yes, many forms have an element of belief, or are completely chimerical yet taken as real. At any rate your experience of anything, including yourself, is a belief due to its limited, partial nature, that complicated by the fact that most perceptions are projections to some degree or other. "Snake! Snake!—…uh…oh. Sorry…
“Would you prefer to be a bacterium?” I think it is too late, lol! And no, but that made me smile.
“If man is a rationalizing animal Mark Twain is rationalizing that man isn’t a rational animal! In other words his theory is self-destructive!” In other words, he proved his point even by that interpretation.
“Is there any evidence that life just is and that form doesn’t really exist? Or is it simply a belief?” That LIFE IS doesn’t necessitate form, but clearly it is our experience that form is included. Even if you just willed your words to appear on my computer screen, that would still be a form, though it is in the thought realm. And yes, many forms have an element of belief, or are completely chimerical yet taken as real. At any rate your experience of anything, including yourself, is a belief due to its limited, partial nature, that complicated by the fact that most perceptions are projections to some degree or other. "Snake! Snake!—…uh…oh. Sorry…
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Well it’s certainly not said to be under the earth, but perhaps it exists in a spiritual plane? That doesn’t sound weird given what else Catholics believe. I mean, come on! You’re the one that believes in the magical sky daddy without a shred of evidence! How am I supposed to take you seriously when you say something is irrational if you hold such an irrational belief yourself?
Anyway, the whole point of the Catechism is to clarify and summarize Catholicism, right? Why would anyone clarify figurative language with figurative language? Why not just say it? This is the reason Catholics are invincible in debate; just as they’re losing, they can simply reference an ambiguity and switch positions. Again, why not just state it in concrete terms so that folks like me can’t spread heresy?
Last question: why did they make a new passage if the old one was sufficient?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
No, I mean that he could prevent all of my suffering while simultaneously allowing me to become more empathetic toward others (so that I may love them).
If God wills it, why wouldn’t he be?
This seems to be the root of our disagreement. Are you saying that an omnipotent being cannot perform actions that are logically contradictory?
Aren’t you the same member who argued that God cannot reduce the number of natural disasters? Pardon me if I’m incorrect…it would help me out if I know you are.
Did you just imply that my suffering will increase after death if I disagree with your beliefs and then put a smilie at the end of it?I don’t know why you’re so pessimistic! If you do choose that option it will seem rather longer than a day on earth…
D
Dameedna
Guest
Some-one can’t “choose” to reject a God that doesn’t exist. It’s logically impossible from the athiests standpoint.
The other issue with the doctrine(that so many christians seem to be overjoyed about), is that regardless of wether or not some-one chose to believe a particular version of a tribal cultures God, we never chose to exist in the first place. The final responsibility has alway’s and will alway’s lie with God. We never chose to exist, and we never chose free will. Regardless of what we then do with life and free will, the choice to exist was never ours to begin with.
Call life a gift if you want, but it is certainly not a gift given with unconditional love, nor is it a gift for those that with all sincerity, simply got it wrong in 1 finite lifetime and suffer eternally for it.
As far as I’m concerned, a god that chooses to create something with the knowlege it will suffer eternally due to a bad choice, is not a God I could ever love or worship.
I see a lot of the stock standard answers to this question, as though people learn this off by rote, but seem to be genuinely lacking in concern for those that make a mistake in their choice of God, religion or un-belief.
If you choose to create something, you are responsible for that creation, including that creations “choices”. If there is a God, I’m sure God would be able to find a way to bring all back to him, even if a bit of suffering is required to ensure this occurs. The biggest problem with the doctrine, is that the “choice” is considered to be made during a finite lifetime, but that the end result of that choice is considered to be infinite. The bible from what I know doesn’t actually express this at all. It never say’s the choice doesn’t remain infinite, it’s just an interpretation of the text.
Cheers
The other issue with the doctrine(that so many christians seem to be overjoyed about), is that regardless of wether or not some-one chose to believe a particular version of a tribal cultures God, we never chose to exist in the first place. The final responsibility has alway’s and will alway’s lie with God. We never chose to exist, and we never chose free will. Regardless of what we then do with life and free will, the choice to exist was never ours to begin with.
Call life a gift if you want, but it is certainly not a gift given with unconditional love, nor is it a gift for those that with all sincerity, simply got it wrong in 1 finite lifetime and suffer eternally for it.
As far as I’m concerned, a god that chooses to create something with the knowlege it will suffer eternally due to a bad choice, is not a God I could ever love or worship.
I see a lot of the stock standard answers to this question, as though people learn this off by rote, but seem to be genuinely lacking in concern for those that make a mistake in their choice of God, religion or un-belief.
If you choose to create something, you are responsible for that creation, including that creations “choices”. If there is a God, I’m sure God would be able to find a way to bring all back to him, even if a bit of suffering is required to ensure this occurs. The biggest problem with the doctrine, is that the “choice” is considered to be made during a finite lifetime, but that the end result of that choice is considered to be infinite. The bible from what I know doesn’t actually express this at all. It never say’s the choice doesn’t remain infinite, it’s just an interpretation of the text.
Cheers
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
First of all, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that it exists on a spiritual plane, although this is not what I believe. Catholics need not believe hell is a place, but Catholics must believe hell is a state of being.
In regard to your outburst about a sky daddy (charming little term), I need not defend the belief in God as intellectually respectable, because 3000 years of cultural history have done it for me. You may find it frustrating that other people’s beliefs do not conform to your definition of rational, but this is no reason to lash out about it.
First of all, I’m not sure who switched positions in this conversation. Secondly, I think switching positions is often necessary in intellectual conversation, if you are truly humble and seeking the truth. The really suspicious debater is the one who never even adjusts his position, because he is probably being led by an agenda rather than the truth.
The phrasing “descend into” hell is a biblical phrasing, many of which they habitually emulate in the Catechism. Maybe they should be more direct about it, but they believe that some things can be best understood through metaphor.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
We can choose to reject love in favour of self-love.
How could you choose to exist if you didn’t exist?!
Do you wish you didn’t exist and have free will?
And so?
After our previous discussion you should know that is a distortion of Christianity.
If a person rejects you do you deny he has a right to exist?
No one is in hell for making a mistake.
Are we responsible for our children’s choices?
You are dead right! But it was more than a bit of suffering Jesus endured for our sakes.
That is an old argument but it doesn’t wash. Why? Because the final choice occurs after death with perfect lucidity…
People use the Bible to prove almost anything…
Cheers!
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I agree.
If you were insulted by it, I should tell you that it’s not an original term. You might find it elsewhere.
Now I’m genuinely curious: why have other cultures that have persisted for 3000+ years not equally impressed you? Why are you swayed so deeply by Christian culture and not by others?
Anyway, I think Christianity has caused sufficient harm to society to warrant the demand for justification. Such intolerance needs to be justified or extinguished. Not all Christians are bad, but many spit in the face of suffering and act as though it’s not worth preventing (which is a nasty byproduct of accepting the idea of Hell/hell being created by a benevolent god in the first place…).
No one did, but I think it’s curious that the Church is lax enough to allow the tactic to be used by its members. It sounds too convenient, ya know?
Certainly, but refining beliefs ought to be done between debates. One should admit when their initial premise is incorrect. The Christians I speak of obfuscate their stance by switching without giving their opponent any ground.
Again, I think this method sounds too convenient and is questionable. You may believe as you like, of course.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I’m sure you see the irony in this.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I am impressed by many cultures. I find the insights of the Native Americans, the Jews, the Buddhists, even the ancient Islamists quite impressive. But are you familiar with a culture that has sustained atheism – or even agnosticism – for 3000+ years?
I never said that Christianity was true because it is respectable. Buddhism is quite respectable, but I very much doubt it is true. Personally, I am not particularly fond of western Christian culture, and I find the forms of eastern Christianity in many ways more appealing. But I am a Roman Catholic because I believe the claims of Catholicism are true.
- Status