Do you believe there is a real hell? Poll

[SeriousQuestion]

It is only a deeply disturbing message to those who reject God and they prefer hell than heaven. It doesn’t matter if it is disturbing or not because everyone will eventually be saved. It is not contradictory at all, unless you magnify the mercy of God until it invades and distorts the other Divine perfections such as God’s perfect justice.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It is only a deeply disturbing message to those who reject God and they prefer hell than heaven. It doesn’t matter if it is disturbing or not because everyone will eventually be saved.

Everyone will not eventually be saved. Those who wind up in Hell are there permanently.

Is this a typo on your part, or did I miss something, because your other posts seems to agree with me.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I am just using a hypothetical scenario, so that if they were right, then it wouldn’t matter if people know this or not.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ah. That makes sense. Sorry for the confusion ^^

 

[Magnanimity]

The World Health Organization (WHO) publishes that approx 800,000 suicides occur globally every year (which is a rate of one person every 40 seconds). The reasons for suicide are often be multi-varied, but a human’s desire to escape (cease) whatever suffering and torment they’re currently exposed to is always going to be central to why they commit suicide.

It is therefore obvious that suffering and torment are unbearable to humans, so much so that they would end their own lives and risk whatever awaits them in the Great Beyond to escape this suffering and torment. And yet, in your infernalist way of thinking, you would suggest to yourself and the rest of the world that your God-of-love is one who would inflict unending suffering and torment in the afterlife, from which there is no suicide and no chance of escape. And somehow, a never-ending punishment is a “just” consequence for finite offenses. And justice trumps mercy, not the other way around, right?

Your version of a gospel is painfully incoherent.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

They want to put themselves there. It is a infinite offense since the person offended is Infinite. The Gospel is also a warning of what would happen when we turn away from God.

 

[Magnanimity]

Nearly 1,000,000 suicides every year demonstrates very clearly that humans do not tolerate too much suffering and torment. But hell, for you, would be unending suffering and torment.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Exactly.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Careful, though. This might be very much the Strawman argument. We do NOT judge who God is placing where. What we do know is that if you desire not to be with God forever, you will be granted that. We call that hell.

For the suicides, only God knows. We cannot judge them all to hell.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Edmono]

You said Edmondo:
I ask God to forgive and fix me because he will not violate my free will.

a. Do you take the Eucharist Edmondo and do you desire heaven with your unaided free will?

b. Or do you take the Eucharist Edmondo and do you desire heaven with your aided free will with God’s efficacious graces?

.
Thank you for answer in advance, a simple a. or b. will answer the question.

Advised a post has to be more than 10 characters - therefore ‘b’

 

[Telstar]

HECTOR MOLINA explains the REASONS and the EFFECTS that Catholics in general Don’t Evangelize.

Quote: I have experienced among Catholics the fear and insecurity because most of the Catholics I know, they doesn’t know they spend eternity in heaven or in the torments of hell and that fear paralyzes them.

This is not a quote from Hector Molina, even though you claim it is. Just from reading it, I can easily see that it might be from the beginning of a sentence in the article that you claim it to be from, but it quickly turns into your own addition to it, as if it was part of the original. A professional writer would not use such poor grammar (i.e. “they doesn’t know”), especially if it wasn’t even noticed by the editor during proofreading. So, I think you need to stop trying to make claims that someone said something that proves your point, when they clearly did not say anything of the sort.

There is nothing in the article that you’re supposedly “quoting” from that says Catholics don’t evangelize because, “they doesn’t know they spend eternity in heaven or in the torments of hell and that fear paralyzes them.”

The main reason Catholics “fear” to evangelize is because they don’t know their Catholic Faith well enough to be able to answer the tough questions that they might be asked by the person they’re talking to. They also have many other fears about evangelizing, but none of them in the article are what you claim the author said. In fact, he actually did say this as his #6 reason,

"6. “Your religion doesn’t matter. Whether you’re a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Hindu, we’re all praying to the same God. Ultimately, all roads lead to heaven.”

"Religious indifferentism—the belief that all religions are equally efficacious—short-circuits evangelization. If all religions are essentially the same, why bother sharing the gospel? If all roads lead to heaven (which happens to be the heresy of Universalism), what’s the point of sharing and spreading the Catholic Faith?"

This is the problem with believing that everyone goes to Heaven. It totally negates everything that Jesus ever taught, and His whole purpose for coming to earth in the first place.

PS: You really need to stop ‘screaming’ at people in all-caps, or with every other word in bold or bold-caps, and one sentence paragraphs, because it tends to make people not even want to bother reading any of your posts.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

PS: You really need to stop ‘screaming’ at people in all-caps, or with every other word in bold or bold-caps, and one sentence paragraphs, because it tends to make people not even want to bother reading any of your posts.

I don’t think @Latin will ever stop with their formatting style, no matter how many times it has been requested by people.

 

[Telstar]

I don’t think @Latin will ever stop with their formatting style, no matter how many times it has been requested by people.

I just recently returned to the forum after a long absence, so I’m not familiar with him/her. I’m guessing this has been an ongoing problem with @Latin’s posting style.

Oh, well… < sigh >

 

[Latin]

Latin:

You said Edmondo:
I ask God to forgive and fix me because he will not violate my free will.

a. Do you take the Eucharist Edmondo and do you desire heaven with your unaided free will?

b. Or do you take the Eucharist Edmondo and do you desire heaven with your aided free will with God’s efficacious graces?

.
Thank you for answer in advance, a simple a. or b. will answer the question.

Advised a post has to be more than 10 characters - therefore ‘b’

Thank you for your answer Edmondo, my answer would be the same for the same question.
.
With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace Aids/ Causes him to FREELY choose the good without forced to choose the good.

I also believe, the way God saves a person with recreation and with efficacious graces God can save anyone whom He wants to save without forced to be saved.

I also believe, if God desire to save everyone in the way described above (or any different ways) God easily can save the entire human race without forced to be saved.

Do you believe Edmondo, if God desire to save the entire human race, God is able to save the entire human race even without anyone forced to be saved?

.
Thank you for your answer in advance.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Thank you @Latin! That is much easier to read and follow.

 

[Telstar]

I asked you why you took Matt 25 to be a literal future-telling event of end-times judgment, rather than hyperbole to emphasize the seriousness of helping particularly vulnerable individuals. I never got an answer.

In Matthew 25, Jesus starts by giving the lesson of the 10 virgins, 5 of whom were wise and prepared for the Bridegroom’s return, but 5 were foolish and their lamps ran out of oil. While they went out to buy more, the Bridegroom returned. As a result, when they finally got back from trying to find more, it was too late. The door was already closed and locked.

Jesus follows that with the story of the “evil and slothful servant”, who along with his fellow servants, were given talents by their master. But, instead of putting it to good use that would earn a profit for his master, he buried it out of fear of losing it, and was punished severely.

Both of these parables are lessons about the responsibility of the followers of Christ to remain in a state of grace by living a good and holy life, while awaiting the day when they will face Judgement, and receive their just reward.

In part, Haydock explains verse 46 this way:
“Ver. 46. Everlasting punishment. The rewards and torments of a future life are declared by Jesus Christ, who is truth itself, to be eternal. Let no one be found to argue hence against the goodness and mercy of God, for punishing sins committed in time with punishments that are eternal. For 1. according to human laws, we see forgery and other crimes punished by death, which is in some measure an eternal exclusion from society. (SIDE NOTE: in modern times this might best be compared to the sins of a serial killer. Telstar) 2. The will of the sinner is such, that he would sin eternally if he could; it is an eternal God, a God of infinite majesty, who is offended. He essentially hates sin; and as, in hell there is no redemption, the sin eternally continuing, the hatred God bears to sin must eternally continue, and with it eternal punishment. The doctrine of those who pretend, with Origen, to question the eternity of the duration of hell’s torments; who can say with him, video infernum quasi senescentum, must encourage vice and embolden the sinner; for if the conviction of eternal torments is not capable to restrain his malice, the doctrine of temporal punishment would be a much less restraint.” (emphasis mine)

In Matthew 18 and several other places in the Gospels, Jesus uses hyperbole to exaggerate His utter disgust for serious sins that cause scandal among the people of God, especially for those that cause scandal to the “innocents”. He despises anything that causes scandal.

Those two situations are very different.

 

[Latin]

Thank you @Latin! That is much easier to read and follow.

Thank you AveOTheotokos! I try to do my best.

 

[Telstar]

Immediately after stating that it is better that you enter into Life with one eye than with two eyes be thrown into fiery Gehenna, He immediately follows this with the parable of the lost sheep. The man leaves his large multitude of sheep to go after the one sheep. Not even one of his sheep will he let go… Men do that in a finite way. God does it infinitely.

In the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus was making a point and all who heard it would have clearly understood His meaning. But, people these days only want to see the part where the Good Shepherd would go out of His way to bring that one lost sheep back into the fold. But, that was only one part of the lesson. Do you realize what a real shepherd would do to a sheep that would constantly wander away from the flock back then? He would break one of their legs to make them lame and unable to wander away, which made them more inclined to stay with the rest of the flock for protection.

Does that seem like cruel and unusual punishment to you? The shepherds did it to protect the wanderer, as well as the rest of the flock. Because, if one or more sheep kept wandering away so that the shepherd had to go out looking for them, the rest of the flock would be left vulnerable to attack by wolves, while he was preoccupied with chasing the wanderers. If they continued to wander off, even after having a limb broken, then they were either abandoned for the sake of the rest of the flock, or they were slaughtered and eaten. The Jews that heard that parable were well aware of the whole lesson that Jesus was teaching them, which was a warning against wandering too far away from God.

The State taking life is not analogous to the punishment of neverending suffering and torment. In fact, when the State takes life, it ceases the suffering and torment of the individual whose life it just ended—it sets him free from this world.

The position of the ‘state’ (i.e. any government) is far from a proper comparison to our spiritual existence, or eternal life. Its only concern is in dealing with the temporal existence of its subjects and meting out justice for the crimes they commit. As far as the state is concerned, a death sentence is the ending of a subjects physical existence as a just sentence for a serious offense(s) against the law of the land. According to the state, the criminal’s life has ended and the threat to others along with it. There is nothing more for them to consider.

You might like to think that someone whose life is taken by the state, “ceases the suffering and torment of the individual”, and sets them “free from this world”. However, it immediately places them before Jesus in their Particular Judgement. If they have confessed their sins, or at least sought the forgiveness of God with true contrition for them, then God will have mercy on their souls. They might still have to suffer for a while in Purgatory to pay for their sins. If they have not asked for forgiveness, then they will be damned.

 

[deMontfort]

(or how an infinite punishment is proportional to finite crimes).

You’re missing the point: They aren’t “finite crimes”. They’re offenses against an infinitely good God, which makes them infinite crimes.

 

[Telstar]

For you and other infernalists, there is no setting one free from hell—the punishment, suffering and torment extend indefinitely into the future. No one that I’ve interacted with in this thread has even attempted to give a rationale for how an inescapable hell is not cruel and unusual punishment (or how an infinite punishment is proportional to finite crimes).

I most certainly have offered explanations concerning the eternal punishments of Hell. You simply choose to ignore them or dismiss them out of hand as irrelevant. I explained how many Saints of the Church have said that the degree of punishment in Hell, is proportionate to the degree and number of the sins committed by a soul. God is always merciful in His Judgement of souls.

I have also explained that the souls who go to Hell are never sent there by God, but freely choose to go there because they do not want to be with God. They believe Heaven is repulsive. They would suffer more in Heaven than they ever would in Hell. God loves them, but if they choose to separate themselves from Him, and prefer to spend all eternity in Hell, then He will not force them to be with Him in Heaven.

But, you simply refuse to give up your belief that God would have to be a horrible ogre if the punishments of Hell were eternal. You make God out to be the bad guy. You like to think you are the only one that really knows the mind of God, because you really want to believe that Hell is only temporary and God will make it all go away in the end. Do you know who really wants you to believe that more than anyone else in the world? Lucifer. If he can convince people that he doesn’t exist, then he’s free to roam around and entice more people to sin. Because, if they don’t believe he’s real, they won’t protect themselves. And, if that doesn’t work, he tries to convince them that Hell is only temporary, so nothing they could ever do will keep them from eventually getting to Heaven… someday. That reminds me of something… Wasn’t it Cinderella who sang, “Someday, my Prince will come!”? Get it? Cinder-ella? Fire? Someday…? “Prince”… of Darkness? No?

You insist on calling me an “infernalist”, but I think that title might just fit you much better than it does me. In the end, spreading your ideas will be much more likely to cause people to spend all eternity in Hell than mine ever will. That would make you the real “infernalist”, wouldn’t it?