Explain the concept of choosing hell to a former protestant now atheist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mystary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mystary

Guest
Hi! One of my close former Baptist friends (now an atheist with an immense hatred for religion) believes in the concept that hell is both A) unjust and B) God’s “immature anger”

I’m having a hard time explaining to him that, in Catholic belief, WE choose hell by choosing to mortally sin against God. I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand. He also discredits the Catechism because it is not the Bible. Any clever metaphors or just straight up answers for my predicament? If anyone has a good explanation for God’s “childish” wrath that would be immensely helpful. Thanks!
 
mystary said:
I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand.
Click to expand...
I think he probably doesn’t want to understand. In situations like this, it’s best to pray for him and wait for the Holy Spirit to open a door for you.
 
When we sin we choose to put something above God. It is idolatry. We call it mortal when it is grave matter. When we die in mortal sin, it’s because we’ve chosen to keep it above God and not repent for it.

I would not say God is outside the whole arrangement, but our part in it involves our own choice of priorities and values.

All sin is serious, but venial sin is (to me, not quoting anything) a weakness while mortal sin goes beyond this and represents a deliberate and serious choice to turn away from God (not just in words as we may try to claim otherwise, but in the heart).
 
Last edited:
In my experience, such atheists are closed hearted. Nothing you say will ever convince them. Pray for them and move on.
 
mystary said:
Hi! One of my close former Baptist friends (now an atheist with an immense hatred for religion) believes in the concept that hell is both A) unjust and B) God’s “immature anger”

I’m having a hard time explaining to him that, in Catholic belief, WE choose hell by choosing to mortally sin against God. I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand. He also discredits the Catechism because it is not the Bible. Any clever metaphors or just straight up answers for my predicament? If anyone has a good explanation for God’s “childish” wrath that would be immensely helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
So he is a former Baptist
who is now an atheist
and discredits the Catholic Catechism
because it’s not the bible…

Does he realize that he is not making sense?
 
He used some very common objections. We should not be intimidated by them-- we should see them as an opportunity to share the Gospel. This is a heart issue, ultimately. No amount of arguing gets someone into Heaven. In order for one to be saved, he/she must experience a spiritual rebirth via the Holy Spirit. He’s got everything to do with it; I hope you’re aware of that.

Say to him that God is infinitely precious and worthy of worship. God is the highest authority. When He punishes, He has the right to do whatever He wants with us. He’s the Creator, for crying out loud. I would also ask this atheist why he is making a very big assumption about sin. What makes him think that people stop sinning after they die? where does the Bible say that at the moment of death, God sanctifies every person?

Those in Hell will curse God for all eternity. That’s why Jesus said that there will be gnashing of teeth in Hell. God allows them to live without His presence forever. To the hater of God, Heaven would be worse than a thousand Hells because that’s how intense their hatred for God is. They would hate to live with Him. Ultimately, even Hell displays the mercy of God.

Moreover, I never see anyone say that Heaven is unjust because it’s an infinite reward. They never say that God is unjust because He offers an infinite reward for finite good deeds. They’ll readily accept an infinite reward, but when it comes to punishment, they don’t want God to have that kind of freedom.

TL;DR - just remind your friend that God is the highest authority and sinning against Him is a huge crime.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
40.png
mystary:
Hi! One of my close former Baptist friends (now an atheist with an immense hatred for religion) believes in the concept that hell is both A) unjust and B) God’s “immature anger”

I’m having a hard time explaining to him that, in Catholic belief, WE choose hell by choosing to mortally sin against God. I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand. He also discredits the Catechism because it is not the Bible. Any clever metaphors or just straight up answers for my predicament? If anyone has a good explanation for God’s “childish” wrath that would be immensely helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
So he is a former Baptist
who is now an atheist
and discredits the Catholic Catechism
because it’s not the bible…

Does he realize that he is not making sense?
Click to expand...
Many atheists I know insist on reading scripture like fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Many atheists I know insist on reading scripture like fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
That tends to be true because many fundamentalist tend to attack and condemn atheism the loudest without even trying to understand what an atheist actually believes. Plus, fundamentalism is an easy target.
 
mystary said:
Hi! One of my close former Baptist friends (now an atheist with an immense hatred for religion) believes in the concept that hell is both A) unjust and B) God’s “immature anger”

I’m having a hard time explaining to him that, in Catholic belief, WE choose hell by choosing to mortally sin against God. I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand. He also discredits the Catechism because it is not the Bible. Any clever metaphors or just straight up answers for my predicament? If anyone has a good explanation for God’s “childish” wrath that would be immensely helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I though he was an atheist?

OK, two tries. One is Ezekiel 18.

the other follows (from Henry IV, Part 2)

In the end, who is it who is immature? God, who gives separation from Himself for those who will not choose what necessarily is required to be in God’s presence? Or is the one who is immature the son who hopes to have a relationship when he wants it and no relationshop when he wants that, who wants to both be able to disdain reconcilation and yet also to live as though reconciled? For make no mistake about this: God is life itself and all that is good. To reject God is to embrace misery. There is no other way.
 
Last edited:
The other is this, from Henry IV, Part II:
KING HENRY V
You all look strangely on me: and you most;
You are, I think, assured I love you not.
Lord Chief-Justice
I am assured, if I be measured rightly,
Your majesty hath no just cause to hate me.
KING HENRY V
No!
How might a prince of my great hopes forget
So great indignities you laid upon me?
What! rate, rebuke, and roughly send to prison
The immediate heir of England! Was this easy?
May this be wash’d in Lethe, and forgotten?
Lord Chief-Justice
I then did use the person of your father;
The image of his power lay then in me:
And, in the administration of his law,
Whiles I was busy for the commonwealth,
Your highness pleased to forget my place,
The majesty and power of law and justice,
The image of the king whom I presented,
And struck me in my very seat of judgment;
Whereon, as an offender to your father,
I gave bold way to my authority
And did commit you. If the deed were ill,
Be you contented, wearing now the garland,
To have a son set your decrees at nought,
To pluck down justice from your awful bench,
To trip the course of law and blunt the sword
That guards the peace and safety of your person;
Nay, more, to spurn at your most royal image
And mock your workings in a second body.
Question your royal thoughts, make the case yours;
Be now the father and propose a son,
Hear your own dignity so much profaned,
See your most dreadful laws so loosely slighted,
Behold yourself so by a son disdain’d;
And then imagine me taking your part
And in your power soft silencing your son:
After this cold considerance, sentence me;
And, as you are a king, speak in your state
What I have done that misbecame my place,
My person, or my liege’s sovereignty.
KING HENRY V
You are right, Justice, and you weigh this well;
Therefore still bear the balance and the sword:
And I do wish your honours may increase,
Till you do live to see a son of mine
Offend you and obey you, as I did.
So shall I live to speak my father’s words:
‘Happy am I, that have a man so bold,
That dares do justice on my proper son;
And not less happy, having such a son,
That would deliver up his greatness so
Into the hands of justice.’…
 
Last edited:
If he really thinks God has “immature anger,” then the God he doesn’t believe in is the same God we don’t believe in. If he wants to argue against the Christian God, he at least needs to argue against the God we actually believe in, and not the God of Richard Dawkins.
 
Explain to him that a person in hell will be happier than he would be in heaven. That should give him something to chew on.
 
mystary said:
I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand.
Click to expand...
He most likely understands just fine, but disagrees. It isn’t a very complex concept. I would suggest dropping it.
 
mystary said:
Hi! One of my close former Baptist friends (now an atheist with an immense hatred for religion) believes in the concept that hell is both A) unjust and B) God’s “immature anger”

I’m having a hard time explaining to him that, in Catholic belief, WE choose hell by choosing to mortally sin against God. I’ve tried explaining it to him in a multiple of ways but he can’t seem to understand. He also discredits the Catechism because it is not the Bible. Any clever metaphors or just straight up answers for my predicament? If anyone has a good explanation for God’s “childish” wrath that would be immensely helpful. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Do we live in a consequence free life, no matter what we do here in this life? Nope!

Why would we think God would treat us differently?

Heaven would not be heaven if there were no rules to get there.
 
To any atheist the Catholic concept of hell is appalling as well as irrational. It is irrational since the Catholic concept of God is of an all-loving Father. That description in Catholic thought is not meant as an approximation or a metaphor, but accurate. If it is believed it is obvious to any outsider that a Catholic must perform mental gymnastics of astonishing levels of skill to believe in both hell and God the loving Father.

The concept is appalling because it represents an extreme view of all human fears - infinite pain, complete absence of comfort from other humans, and no end.

A person whose mind is recently released from such beliefs will experience distress that others continue to believe it, and experience the fear and anguish for others it induces.

They will attempt to use what they know to help save others from this belief and will often get muddled in the process.

As they mature as atheists they will gain perspective and be able to argue more rationally and less emotionally.
 
Pope St John Paul II on Hell.

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.

2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” ( Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” ( Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” ( Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).

The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” ( Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9).
 
3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us, without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” ( Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family … save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”.
 
You have a basic misunderstanding of what love is.
Love only exists in freedom. Your conception of love is of guaranteed relationship that is coerced by the power of God. That is not love, that is force.

Love only exists in freedom. Look around you at life and the way people relate to one another. If you are a good observer you can see that this is true: love only flourishes in freedom.

And no, God’s omnipotence does not violate God’s love. Power is not for abuse. Godly power does not force. Human beings see power as exercised to the limit without consideration for the freedom of others.
Godly power leaves others the freedom to respond to love as they choose.

That freedom to choose is what makes eternal beatitude so wonderful. Otherwise love is simply slavery or a chore to be accomplished. And again, if you look around we all know people in relationships like this, and those kinds of relationships SUCK. Those kinds of relationships lead to violence, dysfunction, etc…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top