Ever lasting punishment?

[AnAtheist]

ncgolf:

Then Hell can exist … even if you don’t believe in it. One can suffer from an eternal punishment without ever believing or recognzing it. That is my point.

Yes, and that is why the statement “only people who want to be in Hell, are in Hell” is absurd. If you do not believe in Hell, you cannot want to be there. Now if you are really there, then it is obviously not because of a desire to be there.

 

[ncgolf]

AnAtheist:

Now if you are really there, then it is obviously not because of a desire to be there.

This statement is a leap. A desire is inconsequential to the punishment. Anyone who is in Hell deseved to be there … don’t confuse a desire with a consequence. I don’t desire to go to prison for robbery but if I am caught and convicted then that is what happens.

 

[AnAtheist]

ncgolf:

This statement is a leap. A desire is inconsequential to the punishment. Anyone who is in Hell deseved to be there … don’t confuse a desire with a consequence. I don’t desire to go to prison for robbery but if I am caught and convicted then that is what happens.

I am not confusing that. I am just pointing to some contradictions made by some people here, why or how someone goes to Hell. I totally agree with you, that the view of Hell, you have expressed so far, is intrinsically consistent.

 

[ncgolf]

AnAtheist:

I am not confusing that. I am just pointing to some contradictions made by some people here, why or how someone goes to Hell. I totally agree with you, that the view of Hell, you have expressed so far, is intrinsically consistent.

Read C. S. Lewis’s writing on Hell … I think it is in “Mere Christianity”.

 

[choicenctr]

AnAtheist,

I have not seen you respond to an important point. ncgolf referred to your example of gravity. The point was made that we do not choose to believe in gravity (or the
consequences of breaking the Law of Gravity). You responded, “Bravo, you got my point.”

I think ncgolf’s example made our point more than it did yours.

You and others that believe in no God, have no problem in accepting natural laws and the consequences of ignoring or breaking those laws. Some of those consequences are temporary and some are permanent (i.e., jumping off the 10-story building and dying). You may say that it is not fair that the person died because they were ignorant of the effects of that choice. Unfortunately, the fact is - he died. Whether we are an atheist or a Christian, we can both agree that the consequence was permanent.

The point being, we may not agree on whether the consequences of breaking God’s laws are fair or tenable but that does not make them less true.

Have you ever heard the argument - if we live as though there is a God and we die and in reality, there is no God, then what have we lost (we will have no consciences to regret not partying more). If we live as though there is no God and we die and in reality, there is, then we will suffer a great loss - our soul (whether that be in fire or in isolation from God) permanently!

 

[Ahimsa]

choicenctr:

Whether we are an atheist or a Christian, we can both agree that the consequence was permanent.

Yes, but the pain that often accompanies dying is not permanent.

 

[mlchance]

thistle:

What did I say to deserve such a personal abusive tirade??

Pointing out that an argument isn’t cogent isn’t personal, abusive, or a tirade.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ncgolf]

AnAtheist:

I am not confusing that. I am just pointing to some contradictions made by some people here, why or how someone goes to Hell. I totally agree with you, that the view of Hell, you have expressed so far, is intrinsically consistent.

One other thing … I am sure people have said one chooses to go to Hell. I think that is your burr. Here is why one can say that. From the Catholic standpoint, at death, you see Divine Truth, before you, all your life laid out before you. Everything. Remember you are in the midst of Truth itself, you cannot lie or explain your way out of your actions. You see all things as God sees them, the motives behind actions, deceit, love … all things. You, therefore see your punishment as just, as a logical and just consequence to your actions. There is no arguing the point at that time, remember you are in the presence of Truth itself. So the soul knows the outcome, either eternal life or hell and there is no argument … in a sense the soul has chosen.

 

[dlea67]

AnAtheist:

I truly understand your point. I am in the process of going from a “mostly” agnostic lifestyle, to Catholicism. The hows and and whys are quite a story. Throughout the last two months, I have opened my eyes to many things that I previously dismissed and continually find myself doing things that my “rational self” would have dimissed as ridiculous just a short time ago. (the latest of which is posting this .

A CD that I found in this same manner quoted a Christian philosopher as defining hell as “an eternal fixation on nothingness”. As an atheist, it seems as if that is what you are setting yourself up for; not from a religious standpoint necessarily, but from a purely physical one.

If hell can be defined as nothingness and is the “counter balance” to heaven, then heaven must be, “everything”. I think that is what the folks on the board are proclaiming God’s love to be. Choosing to accept it is logically the only way to attain it.

I am quite sure there are some holes in my theology, but I cannot physically explain the change in my demeanor, outlook, and sense of fulfillment over the last 8 weeks without looking at “God”. I didn’t get serenaded by angels, narrowly escape death, or win the lottery. I just got truly tired of feeling hollow and I guess I allowed myself to see what I have apparantly missed for 38 years.

I appreciate this dialog. Hurst, you are extremely well written and concise. It’s really nice to see possibly the most controversial topic in the history of man be discussed in such a civil manner.

Thanks.

 

[AnAtheist]

ncgolf:

One other thing … I am sure people have said one chooses to go to Hell. I think that is your burr. Here is why one can say that. From the Catholic standpoint, at death, you see Divine Truth, before you, all your life laid out before you. Everything. Remember you are in the midst of Truth itself, you cannot lie or explain your way out of your actions. You see all things as God sees them, the motives behind actions, deceit, love … all things. You, therefore see your punishment as just, as a logical and just consequence to your actions. There is no arguing the point at that time, remember you are in the presence of Truth itself. So the soul knows the outcome, either eternal life or hell and there is no argument … in a sense the soul has chosen.

That is a good argument. But then one chooses when one is actually dead, and is enabled to choose then, because one has information then, which was not present when still alive.

 

[AnAtheist]

choicenctr:

AnAtheist,
I have not seen you respond to an important point…]
The point being, we may not agree on whether the consequences of breaking God’s laws are fair or tenable but that does not make them less true.

Right. And I agree. What I wanted to point out is, that the term “choosing” in this context is wrong. Atheists do not choose not to believe, that is utter nonsense, and by repeating it frequently, Christians will a) never understand us and b) never be understood by us, as most Atheists will simply think “typically, they have only silly and wrong arguments”. I still think understanding each other will lead to a better world, but hey, what do I know…
It is not that we are in a supermarket of religions and we pick a brand. Like today I am buying Hindu, tomorrow Atheism. We analyse the facts, the arguments, the teachings and then come to an conclusion.
When look at the world and the nature of a god proposed by Christianity, I come to the conclusion that such a god is impossible. You may accuse me of misinterpretating the data, to have serious misconceptions about the nature of God, of applying false logic, but not of picking the wrong choice as if there were alternatives.
To accuse people of having certain motives they don’t have, even if those people again and again affirm, they don’t have those motives, does not keep a dialogue running. And it works theother way round. What would you say, when I insisted, you only believe in God, because you are afraid of death or have been told so by your parents?

Have you ever heard the argument - if we live as though there is a God and we die and in reality, there is no God, then what have we lost (we will have no consciences to regret not partying more). If we live as though there is no God and we die and in reality, there is, then we will suffer a great loss - our soul (whether that be in fire or in isolation from God) permanently!

Of course. Some variation of Pascals’s Wager. That’s one of the worst arguments for a god ever thought of.

 

[Melanie01]

Goodonya Atheist…but hell still exists. You should read the Visions the kids had at Fatima and other visionaries that positively litter history.

Disbelieving it will NOT make it go away.

 

[thistle]

AnAtheist:

Right. And I agree. What I wanted to point out is, that the term “choosing” in this context is wrong. Atheists do not choose not to believe, that is utter nonsense, and by repeating it frequently, Christians will a) never understand us and b) never be understood by us, as most Atheists will simply think “typically, they have only silly and wrong arguments”. I still think understanding each other will lead to a better world, but hey, what do I know…
It is not that we are in a supermarket of religions and we pick a brand. Like today I am buying Hindu, tomorrow Atheism. We analyse the facts, the arguments, the teachings and then come to an conclusion.
When look at the world and the nature of a god proposed by Christianity, I come to the conclusion that such a god is impossible. You may accuse me of misinterpretating the data, to have serious misconceptions about the nature of God, of applying false logic, but not of picking the wrong choice as if there were alternatives.
To accuse people of having certain motives they don’t have, even if those people again and again affirm, they don’t have those motives, does not keep a dialogue running. And it works theother way round. What would you say, when I insisted, you only believe in God, because you are afraid of death or have been told so by your parents?

Of course. Some variation of Pascals’s Wager. That’s one of the worst arguments for a god ever thought of.

Since you are still talking about “choosing” or not choosing as you think below is an extract from an answer given by Michelle Arnold of Ask An Apologist:

Second, one’s definitive choice for or against God takes place in this life before death. Immediately after death is the particular judgment of the soul, when the soul is either saved or damned (cf. Heb. 9:27, CCC 1051). If a soul has definitively chosen against God before death, the soul goes to hell. If the choice is for God, the soul either goes to heaven if it is entirely ready for heaven or to purgatory to be cleansed and made ready if not.

The point is that in your case you have explored Christianity and came to the conclusion that there is no God then you are making a choice against God. There is no gray area. You are either for God or against God. If you conclude there is no God then you are against God.

 

[AnAtheist]

thistle:

The point is that in your case you have explored Christianity and came to the conclusion that there is no God then you are making a choice against God. There is no gray area. You are either for God or against God. If you conclude there is no God then you are against God.

Typical dualistic thinking. No X is neither for or against X. To against X, X must exist in the first place.

 

[AnAtheist]

Melanie01:

Disbelieving it will NOT make it go away.

And believing does’t wish it into existence. So what?

offtopic: Shouldn’t that be “Krankenhaus Nachtschwester”?

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

… Atheists do not choose not to believe, that is utter nonsense,

You seem to be saying that rather than disbelieving, atheists simply are not able to choose to believe, since they have no basis to believe. Correct?

AnAtheist:

… We analyse the facts, the arguments, the teachings and then come to an conclusion.
When look at the world and the nature of a god proposed by Christianity, I come to the conclusion that such a god is impossible.

This seems to suggest that you have analyzed available information, and used it as a basis for a decision.

Secondly, you refer to the “god proposed by Christianity”. But being atheist is not limited to that “god”, is it? It is the general refusal to accept anyone’s definition of a “god”. Correct?

Just trying to get clear on some things.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

You seem to be saying that rather than disbelieving, atheists simply are not able to choose to believe, since they have no basis to believe. Correct?

Yes. I won’t say, all atheist think that way, but certainly the ones I know.

Secondly, you refer to the “god proposed by Christianity”. But being atheist is not limited to that “god”, is it? It is the general refusal to accept anyone’s definition of a “god”. Correct?

Yes.

You have pointed out a big communication problem on this forum, the connotation people have with the term “god”.

For Christians of course god equals God (the triune one, allmighty creator), for Muslims it is Allah, etc. To atheists a god is a mythical being invented by mankind. I usually try to *name *the god in question, or use “God” when I talk about your god here and use “god” when I am talking about the general idea. Stressed with the indefinite article “a” sometimes to make that clear. Obviously not everybody is getting that, this is a perfect example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1155005&postcount=448

 

[ncgolf]

AnAtheist:

You have pointed out a big communication problem on this forum, the connotation people have with the term “god”.

Come on AnAtheist, you are in a Catholic forum. The term God in this forum is going to center on the Triune God, what do you expect .

You already should have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into here.

If I went into an atheists forum, my expectations would be a whole lot different.

 

[Melanie01]

offtopic: Shouldn’t that be “Krankenhaus Nachtschwester”?

Thanks for correcting my spelling…

I intend to drop it now .

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AnAtheist:

That is a bit difficult, because when you ask three Christians you get four answers.
But I see a clear contradiction between:
In Hell are ONLY people who WANT to be there.
One goes to Hell, if one does not obey a certain set of rules. (What set of rules exactly depends on the type of Christian you ask too, but that’s irrelevant for the argument.)

Christianity is a Life - not a set of rules. “Rules” are exactly what it is not. What one thinks Christianity is, will influence how we think about it & about God - and about hell (for instance).​

E.g. Someone does not believe in God and does not want to go to Hell. Where will that person end up according to Christian doctrine?

Not necessarily in Hell, that’s for certain. Salvation is impossible without God’s grace - but this has many ways of coming to us: God does not save us without our obedience to Him, one way or another, but it does not follow that we have to know His Name. Acts 10 is helpful here - God is not limited to the means He uses to help us. He is God - not a puppet.​

BTW - salvation is not, strictly speaking, the main thing about Christianity: it feels that way only because man needs salvation. God would be infinitely Good even if the entire human trace were not saved. It is God Who matters supremely - not our salvation. God is infinitely desirable - the only Desirable. So Hell would be Paradise, if God were there, and Heaven would be Hell, if God’s Presence did not make it Heaven. Salvation is worthless, without Christ. To lose Christ, is to lose the only friendship worth having - by our own deliberate fault. And because our freedom resembles God’s (for He has made us in His image, so that we might enjoy Him for ever), we have the freedom to tell Him to get lost. IOW, we are capable of being damned, because God does not want robots - He wants sons & daughters.

To talk of Hell without seeing how it contrasts with the blessed life of Heaven, is to see it in a lop-sided way: it is nothing of itself - its nothingness need to be contrasted with the fullness of life which is Christ’s, which He is, which He came to give us, which begins here on earth, and comes to its fullness in the world to come. It is something we are supposed to have - something we cannot have if we are cut of from God by sin. That is why the Fall is so important - it’s impossible to understand why Hell is not unjust, if one sees it in isolation. Doctrines don’t work in isolation - any more than a bodily organ could.

To argue, both actions of that someone are equivalent, is twisting the meaning of the used words. Wanting a thing A or not is not the same as doing or not another thing B.