Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

God is omniscient and he does answer prayers - just not always in the way we think he should. Does God know in advance of someone being born what course they will take in life, and in spite of the fact they will ultimately reject him choose to let them be born and go to hell anyway? To be honest I don’t really know. I don’t really know because I don’t have foreknowledge, or what it means to have foreknowledge. If I knew for certain someone was going to turn out bad in advance of their birth would I let them be born? I honestly don’t know.

Had another think about this.

There’s no doubt foreknowledge and free will are difficult concepts, and a bit of a conundrum. Theologians have come up with all sorts of explanations over the years in an attempt to answer that question, and I don’t think anyone has ever answered it in a totally adequate or satisfactory way. What I would say, and again its not a very satisfactory answer, is justice is involved because God is not unjust.

Catholics believe God desires all humanity to enter heaven. Therefore, we all have the potential, for want of a better phrase, to share the eternal life of God. Therefore, someone who ultimately rejects God has the potential not to do so. If God new for certain, and in advance, that someone would ultimately reject Him, can it deemed just never to give them the opportunity to choose a different course? I would say it can’t be deemed just, even if you know for certain the person will never accept the opportunity.

To explain further, if a judge is faced with a defendant, and all evidence points to the fact they’re a pretty hopeless case and will certainly continue to lead a life of crime, he or she can has the power to bail them or suspend their sentence, which they may do and they may not do. In considering all the evidence, they may decide to be lenient and give the person the opportunity to change their ways in spite of an overwhelming degree of certainty they in relation to the above. Let’s go further and say the judge has foreknowledge and knows for certain the person will not take the opportunity to make good. They still may give them the opportunity in the interests of justice. Does that make sense or is it a bad argument?

It would seem to hinge mightily on whether or not the judge actually could foresee the future with perfect clarity: if the judge could predict with certainty that by being lenient, the defendant might go off and gravely injure an innocent party, he might decide differently than if he merely foresaw the possibility. Something to consider, at any rate. Thank you.

This parent did. His son died. Thousands of people on the train survived, who would otherwise have been killed. Was he an unloving father?

Was he at peace with his decision? Also, was not his action done out of concern for those on the train? Did he not simply decide in favor of the greater good? How about if his child were alone on the tracks? Would he still be justified in doing nothing to save him?

Yes, one could conjure up all sorts of images,

Good question. I’m not sure I could give you a very satisfactory answer to that one either. The only thing I would say is to be just, you would have to apply your super powers equally to all students and ensure none of them would turn to a life of crime. That would ultimately result in a very superficial world, where no one had to take responsibility for their own actions, because the person with the super powers would make sure nothing bad ever happened.

Additionally, might it not be the case that with no real evil present, each and every mere trifle might take on ever greater proportions, thus leading to demands for its equal elimination?

This is a fair comment worth considering.

However is it still equal to consider it just for God to ignore opportunities to save a soul, what with the eternal aspect of its potential condemnation? In such a case, might it not be argued that further earthly evil may even be required in order to alter the soul’s course to perdition?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

One thing I’ve wondered: would the souls in Hell be happy in Heaven? Would living in the the beatific vision be more painful to them than the torments of Hell?

Also, keep in mind that Hell is not the same for everyone, just as Heaven isn’t. I (if I make it) will have a much lower place than my namesake the apostle.
Likewise, I’d assume someone who raised as a Christian but rejects the truth but otherwise lives a decent life will go to Hell, but not so deep as a murderer.

My biggest problem: why does God let Satan roam to tempt us? Okay, we have free will which we will abuse, I get that. But why let Satan constantly try to drag us down? It’s like a loving parent letting their kid hang out with a drug dealer.

Perhaps it is more like allowing one’s child hang out with a bully in order to toughen him/her up? Yes, there is the possibility of corruption, but there is also the opportunity for the child to gain his/her own footing and learn to rebuff the attacks. At any rate, it is a pragmatic means of weeding out the weak.

Now, does this mean that God is perfect love? Not necessarily. He might simply be perfect reason…or he may not exist at all.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The point of that passage is to show God loves perfectly, it’s not meant to show the consequences / punishment for our disobedience. That comes in other passages…

Is it not potentially confusing that God might speak of treating evil-doers with kindness when in reality he is instead planning for their most hideous torment after death? What else might one expect God to be planning if his words directed to mankind on Earth might have an equally different inflection in the afterlife?

Additionally, what purpose is there in God demonstrating his perfect love for good and bad individuals alike, if he does not intend to love the individuals with bad inclinations for very long?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The separation itself is the punishment.

Is separation from God in the “here and now” a punishment? If so, is this Hell? If not, why would Hell necessarily be any different than Earth?

Belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. At the termination of any person’s life, God’s presence is revealed so the individual is acutely aware. If that person is well-disposed toward being in God’s presence, he enters it (possibly with some prior purification). If the person avoids God’s presence then he remains out of it.

The key is: while the person is still living, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty how he will react at that time.

Yet others here claim that no one may change their minds after death: that a choice must be made during this life. Which one is it? Must one choose now, amidst a field of conflicting faiths and ideologies, or might one put off the decision until death?

Who is one to believe in this matter?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I often ponder why much of what is often labeled “sin” is really what biologists are increasingly viewing as hard wired. Example: Male tendencies to seek multiple seek partners while females tend to be more selective. This is rampant in the animal kingdom and, despite the hopes of many, much the same in human societies.

Why are so many activities & predispositions that increasingly appear hard wired and/or genetic labeled “sin”?

While I am pondering, what about mental illness or simple brain chemistry? A person committing suicide due to what we now view as depression might have been labeled far differently in years past.

In short, why does learning & science change as knowledge grows, yet many religions remain firmly stuck in the middle ages?

Very good thoughts. Perhaps what is termed sin is actually what we recognize as behavior that threatens to return us to the animal kingdom? Perhaps the whole point of the exercise is for us to remain far enough from our animal-like impulses to eventually graduate to a higher level of existence? Perhaps it is as simple as God not wanting pets in Heaven?

Or perhaps we, on a subconscious level, all view the animal kingdom with disdain, since that is where we originated, so any choices or actions that might be viewed as taking humanity back there (as a whole or individually) would be frowned upon sufficiently for them to be labeled taboo or “sin”. After all, does not sin appear to be very similar to actions taken by animals?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Some of those reduce culpability. Others increase it.

Purgatory is that “repairing” for those who are well-disposed to be with God but are not yet able to enter His presence.

…and Hell is what, exactly? Where God tortures his failures?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He is the source of intelligence; yes. And his Logic, by definition, is itself Love.
The alternative to logic is Chaos or nothingness.

Consider: If you are ignorant of Gravity, or stove heat, or … you will still fall down – be burned, … because that is the Logic of gravity, stove heat, …
Logic can’t also be an all encompasing illogic; There is no utopia of arbitrary logic.
Heaven itself will require discipline, and changing of inappropriate thinking in order to enter.

I also want to make the point that Faith itself can be reasoned to. Abraham, for example, reasoned from his experience that there was a resurrection – and he gave proof of his conviction to his servants before preparing to “sacrifice” his son. Faith, then, can ultimately found through reason and experience;

If you can know what truth is, you can (with difficulty) find the answer called God by a process of elimination. But, you may not like the journey.

What if one’s reasoned experience suggests that God is either not loving or does not exist?

To this question you are going to get a disparity of answers; The Catholic tradition does not, in fact, define this formally. I would say you are in error about the “infinitely disproportional” part. In fact, the very logic which those in Hell use – is still a reflection of God. That logic, is therefore still Love, and still good. But it is incompatible with total peace or more importantly, of sharing a life of peace with others capable of total peace.

I would offer to you this idea: Someone must hold (cradle, bear, juggle even) the souls in hell. That is, without logic – they would become mindless animals; and without God to continually be the Truth value of logic – they would cease to exist all together.

Is it truly better to allow a prisoner to be tortured than to be executed?

I expect God, and perhaps even some of us – will be linked to those in hell through a communion (baptism) which will make some suffer in hell far more than others.
That is, some people must bear rule over the unruly. How it is that they (angels?) will do this is something of a deep mystery.

In order for God to create, he had to make something less than himself. Which means, it couldn’t be perfect by itself – or it would “Be” God. God can’t create God.

Is a manufacturer able to make a perfect ball-bearing? How about one that is 99.9% precise?

If mankind were 99.9% perfect, would that not be good enough? Would it not be far and beyond better than it is? What might explain the difference?

There is only one way in which we can overcome all of ignorance that causes us to hurt each other both knowingly and unknowingly – and that is to be told or informed of all necessary things by God. We are not infinite that we can be told all things, but we are capable of understanding enough to listen to what options are allowable (a law of communication). In heaven, we are told, God himself will wipe away every tear.

Whereas in Hell, might one expect God to cause every tear?

If you are really willing, I would be happy to discuss qualms that you have with what I have said.

 

[jmvizanko]

You are correct. Would you do me the favor of telling me what that first single cell that sprang to life was supposed to do? Reproduce itself exactly? Are most mutations to a cell harmful or benefical? What do most harmful mutations do to the cell? What are the odd’s of the less likely random beneficial mutations giving rise to the order and diversity you see? If it is logical to believe that a series of random mutations gave rise to all of this–what kind of time frame would be needed? Does the record support this? Is this the logical answer?

The theory of evolution was considered fact before genetic evidence was even factored in. Then genetic evidence came along and basically verified what was already predicted and observed using comparative anatomy, the fossil record, etc. Your objections to evolution are based in a lack of understanding of the theory. Most mutations are harmful, true, but mutations are not the only source of variation as well. There is recombination at a reproduction level. But the much bigger source that dives change in genes is the success of features through natural selection. If I am a flower that has a little bump that looks like something an insect would like, I’m more likely to breed. If one of my children has a bump on that bump that looks even more like something an insect would like, they are more likely to breed. And eventually you might get a flower that has an ornate bump that seems designed for an insect, but its the other way around, the insect went after things it liked more and more, and the flowers that matched that were the ones that survived.

As for abiogenesis, there is no explanation, just the start of guesses. You can look at us not knowing how life formed as a “gap” proof for your god, and I’ll look at it as something we just don’t know yet, or may never know. But denying how well evolution fits everything after that is about equal to calling the earth flat at this point.

And this proves what? What you complain about is normal for our fallen world (the result of our initial disobedience). Is your complaint that God doesn’t intervene everywhere? That you don’t understand why God choses to intervene here but not there?

My complaint is not that God doesn’t intervent everywhere, my complaint is that God doesn’t intervene in the extreme example of where it would make sense to. Unless you can think of some good that comes from torturing a random toddler to death.

I think many here have pointed out that they don’t think it arbitrary or infinitely cruel or injust–you have stated it as if it were fact. I didn’t read a clear and convincing argument supporting your assertion–of course I could have missed it.

Its very simple. Hell is arbitrary if people are sent there for a random quality that they possess, namely belief, that they had no control over finding true or not. The fact that this is the case for what they believe is clearly evident in observing that most people retain the beliefs of their parents or culture Hell is infinitely cruel and unjust because it is eternal and infinite, and because of the above mentioned arbitrariness of its assignment.

 

[SonCatcher]

Is separation from God in the “here and now” a punishment? If so, is this Hell? If not, why would Hell necessarily be any different than Earth?

No one living now is truly separate from God since He sustains our lives continually. Some are unaware of His presence, certainly. Others hate it. But all are somehow in His presence.

That said, for those who reject God (not to be confused with ignorance), their rejection is their punishment. There is also chance for them to change.

Yet others here claim that no one may change their minds after death: that a choice must be made during this life. Which one is it? Must one choose now, amidst a field of conflicting faiths and ideologies, or might one put off the decision until death?

Who is one to believe in this matter?

There is no contradiction. I addressed this previously.

 

[minkymurph]

I truly hope not: if the Irish lose their sense of humor, what hope is there for the rest of the world?

I don’t think I ever will. It’s my sense of humor keeps me going.:bounce:

However, given that Jesus was said to have often read from the scrolls when at temple, was he not in a strange position of reading potentially outright fabrications about his father, while at the same time saying nothing about the contrast? Is God not as concerned about the details of his own record than he is about the very most minute sin committed by the smallest member of mankind on Earth?

I’m not sure that he is. Depends on how you understand the terms ‘inspiration’ and ‘Revelation.’ I won’t get into that because it would go way off the topic of the thread.
To come back to the point, Jesus often corrected the view his followers had of God through his parables. His ultimate correction was himself - as is recorded in the Gospel of John ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father also.’

The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably.”

14 But Micaiah said, “As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me.”

15 When he arrived, the king asked him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or not?”

“Attack and be victorious,” he answered, “for the LORD will give it into the king’s hand.”

16 The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?”

17 Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’”

18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?”

19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.

“‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’

23 “So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”

Ah yes, the vision of the spirit that fools Ahab. Ahab has called the prophet, the prophet is telling Ahab God has send a spirit to fool Ahab through enticing the prophets to give him bad council. Now, if you wanted to fool someone into making some disastrous decision, would you send a prophet to tell them about it in advance? So what is this about? The Deuteronomistic historian doesn’t have a high opinion of the monarchs of Israel as you can see from the writings. According to these writings, Ahab particularly ineffectual king and not the smartest one. He had also surrounded himself with false prophets who were giving him bad council, which the passage eludes to. Micaiah is the true prophet of God but he doesn’t want to listen to him because he never says anything good. His other prophets tell him what he wants to hear.

Micaiah is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Ancient Near East History tells us the destruction of Jerusalem may have happened anyway, irrespective of God. The Deuteronomistic historian doesn’t have a high opinion of monarchs and military defeat was often interpreted as divine retribution in that culture. So, Israel’s destruction and exile are seen as punishment for unfaithfulness. However, the OT also records that prior to the destruction of Israel, the prophet Isaiah who was the true prophet of God, gave the king council not to throw his lot in with the Egyptians when under threat from the Babylonians. He chose to ignore this council, listening to the council of others which proved to be a bad political decision. Therefore, Israel could have avoided destruction if the king had listened to Isaiah’s council. Ahab may have avoided tragedy if he had not gone to war.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No one living now is truly separate from God since He sustains our lives continually. Some are unaware of His presence, certainly. Others hate it. But all are somehow in His presence.

That said, for those who reject God (not to be confused with ignorance), their rejection is their punishment. There is also chance for them to change.

If there is a chance for them to change does this mean they can potentially escape Hell?

There is no contradiction. I addressed this previously.

How does one cultivate the proper spiritual disposition if they do not believe in God? For instance, is it not claimed by Jesus that he will deny in Heaven those who deny him on Earth?

 

[minkymurph]

It would seem to hinge mightily on whether or not the judge actually could foresee the future with perfect clarity: if the judge could predict with certainty that by being lenient, the defendant might go off and gravely injure an innocent party, he might decide differently than if he merely foresaw the possibility. Something to consider, at any rate. Thank you.

The judge may decide differently. Like I said, it’s not an adequate answer and not a very satisfactory one. If any of us had foreknowledge, knowing in advance what would happen, we really don’t know what we would do. We may know in hindsight what we should or could have done, but as we don’t have foreknowledge we don’t really know how we would handle things.

Was he at peace with his decision? Also, was not his action done out of concern for those on the train? Did he not simply decide in favor of the greater good? How about if his child were alone on the tracks? Would he still be justified in doing nothing to save him?

As far as I know his son was alone on the tracks. I don’t know all the details, someone else told me the account. I know it was during a war and they were both in the army. I don’t know if he was at peace with his decision, but by all accounts he didn’t find it an easy one to make.

Additionally, might it not be the case that with no real evil present, each and every mere trifle might take on ever greater proportions, thus leading to demands for its equal elimination?

Probably would. If there was no evil in the world, a mere trifle of an act may take on greater proportions.

However is it still equal to consider it just for God to ignore opportunities to save a soul, what with the eternal aspect of its potential condemnation? In such a case, might it not be argued that further earthly evil may even be required in order to alter the soul’s course to perdition?

Interesting point. I kind of have a theory that in order to know what is ultimately good, we need to know what is ultimately bad. I won’t get into that too much 'cos it’s my weird philosophy founded on nothing other than my own thinking. The opportunity to saved is present every day of our lives. Catholics also believe ‘saving’ (we don’t really like to use that word ) is ongoing. It happens throughout our lives, not just at certain points in time.

 

[SonCatcher]

If there is a chance for them to change does this mean they can potentially escape Hell?

Correct. But it isn’t a valid “escape plan” as people have a tendency of dying before they are “ready.”

How does one cultivate the proper spiritual disposition if they do not believe in God?

As I wrote: by living according to those principles which they are aware of. For example: a conscientious agnostic becomes acutely aware of the damage done to marriages and spouses by infidelity. He/she therefore strives to remain faithful in order to protect his/her spouse. It has nothing to do for this person with his ability to “not get caught.”

Naturally, there is a lot more to it than fidelity in marriage, but I hope you get the picture.

Finding this way, for a nonbeliever, is rather like walking in the dark. It can take a lot of stumbling to find the way. Therefore, the value of faith, for the believer, is that he/she can see the way due to well-formed teaching and the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

For instance, is it not claimed by Jesus that he will deny in Heaven those who deny him on Earth?

I think that was addressed to His followers.

 

[jmvizanko]

It actually isn’t an “after death” chance. It is the revelation of the person’s spiritual state at the point of death.

This is where the principle called “invincible ignorance” comes into play. If a person lives all his life yet never hears the Gospel so as to understand (thus, cannot make an educated decision for or against), his judgement will be based on his resolve to live his life according to those principles he does understand.

Except its not an educated “decision.” If you hear the Gospel and you honestly think its ridiculous, how is that a choice? Wouldn’t it be much better if nobody spread the Gospel then, and all those Eskimos for example don’t have the opportunity to be damned?

 

[Ignatius]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand?

Your error, my friend, is that you do not know what hell is.

If you gave a party and invited all of your friends because you want to be with them, but some of them do not want to come to the party, would you force them to?

Of course not, because that would not be love. Neither will God force us to be with Him if we choose not to. If we decide that we do not want to be with God, He will let us have our way and be separated from Him.

Hell is nothing more than separation from God of those who wish to be separated from Him.

 

[Searcher360]

It actually isn’t an “after death” chance. It is the revelation of the person’s spiritual state at the point of death.

This is where the principle called “invincible ignorance” comes into play. If a person lives all his life yet never hears the Gospel so as to understand (thus, cannot make an educated decision for or against), his judgement will be based on his resolve to live his life according to those principles he does understand.

Ah, but what if the “Gospel” as you understand it does not resonate as true or otherwise with a person’s innermost thoughts? The problem with your position, at least to me is that it presumes all other lines of thought are invalid, against the will of God or just plain wrong. To so argue would be to place absolute credence in a series of writings drafted from a few hundred to several hundred or more years after the death of Christ. To me this seems a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time believing an almighty God would chose one particular brand or sect over all others regardless of sincerity or one’s hard wired brain chemistry and/or DNA. Not logical, at least not to me.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t think I ever will. It’s my sense of humor keeps me going.:bounce:

Good.

I’m not sure that he is. Depends on how you understand the terms ‘inspiration’ and ‘Revelation.’ I won’t get into that because it would go way off the topic of the thread.
To come back to the point, Jesus often corrected the view his followers had of God through his parables. His ultimate correction was himself - as is recorded in the Gospel of John ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father also.’

Fair enough.

Ah yes, the vision of the spirit that fools Ahab. Ahab has called the prophet, the prophet is telling Ahab God has send a spirit to fool Ahab through enticing the prophets to give him bad council. Now, if you wanted to fool someone into making some disastrous decision, would you send a prophet to tell them about it in advance? So what is this about? The Deuteronomistic historian doesn’t have a high opinion of the monarchs of Israel as you can see from the writings. According to these writings, Ahab particularly ineffectual king and not the smartest one. He had also surrounded himself with false prophets who were giving him bad council, which the passage eludes to. Micaiah is the true prophet of God but he doesn’t want to listen to him because he never says anything good. His other prophets tell him what he wants to hear.

Micaiah is predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Ancient Near East History tells us the destruction of Jerusalem may have happened anyway, irrespective of God. The Deuteronomistic historian doesn’t have a high opinion of monarchs and military defeat was often interpreted as divine retribution in that culture. So, Israel’s destruction and exile are seen as punishment for unfaithfulness. However, the OT also records that prior to the destruction of Israel, the prophet Isaiah who was the true prophet of God, gave the king council not to throw his lot in with the Egyptians when under threat from the Babylonians. He chose to ignore this council, listening to the council of others which proved to be a bad political decision. Therefore, Israel could have avoided destruction if the king had listened to Isaiah’s council. Ahab may have avoided tragedy if he had not gone to war.

Except, is it not strange that God would choose to employ a “lying” spirit in order to provoke Ahab’s doom? How might a spirit in Heaven volunteer to lie?

At least that is what Micaih claims to have happened…

 

[jmvizanko]

Your error, my friend, is that you do not know what hell is.

If you gave a party and invited all of your friends because you want to be with them, but some of them do not want to come to the party, would you force them to?

Of course not, because that would not be love. Neither will God force us to be with Him if we choose not to. If we decide that we do not want to be with God, He will let us have our way and be separated from Him.

Hell is nothing more than separation from God of those who wish to be separated from Him.

And if all hell is is separation from a god that would send people there to begin with, I won’t miss him. After all, I’m living a happy life without even thinking he exists. Probably the only thing that would suck about it would be the fact that if your religion is true, my wife won’t be in hell with me.

Unless you are suggesting that separation from god in hell is somehow torturous even if it isn’t in this life. In which case it still stands that its infinitely unjust and cruel.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

A theme I have noticed with those who oppose Hell is that they believe one cannot know God without knowing everything about Him and how He works and that one cannot choose the right choice without first being able to properly experience the consequences that accompany making the wrong choices. The conclusion being that God could never be said to be just unless these criteria have been met.

The problem with this position is it denies the reality that exists and that we profess in our daily actions within our daily lives. It denies that we CAN have a perfect relationship with someone without knowing everything about them. It denies that we CAN make the right choice without having to first experience the consequences that occur from making the wrong choice. It denies that sufficient knowledge is just that; sufficient and that sufficient knowledge does not entail knowing everything or experiencing everything first hand.

I can say that I know my mother, and that I truly love my mother even though I do not know everything about her. Likewise I can choose to not commit a crime because I do not want to go to jail even though I have never experienced what it is like to be in jail. Saying I cannot truly love or know my mother just because I don’t know her secrets, her thoughts or her heart is ridiculous. Saying I would have to experience jail in order for me to make the informed decision that I wouldn’t want to go to jail is ridiculous. Saying that I should be exempt from the consequence that result from committing crimes because of a lack of a proper experience with jail is also ridiculous. While prison is meant to reform criminals, it is also meant to punish and keep criminals out of society; hence why we have life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Hell is a life sentence without the possibility of parole for those souls who choose not to reform their ways after receiving SUFFICENT KNOWLEDGE and GRACE from GOD to do so. I would no more defend the souls in Hell than I would a criminal serving a life sentence who told me He understood his crime, was not sorry for it, and would not change his ways no matter what opportunities were given to him.

Furthermore to say that we can produce anything good, separate from God who is goodness itself is a fallacy in the Catholic Faith. So when you say "why does God exhibit the same behavior as an imperfect being ", what you mistakenly assume is that the good we have done has been because of our own power when quite the opposite is the case. On the contrary, anything good we imperfect beings do, we do because we have imitated a perfect being: God. God is the source of all good things. This means He is the source of all true love, all true justice, all true holiness, etc. If we so happen to express or perform acts of true love, true justice, true holiness, etc. it is only because we have taken them from God who is their source and not vice versa.

When a parent loves perfectly they do so in imitation of God. When parents disciplines and punish correctly they do so in imitation of God. So, when you say a parent is just but God however is not because he doesn’t go above and beyond what good parents do in this life who are only good parents because they imitate God, then what you’re stating is that God is not good because He does not go above and beyond Himself.

Lastly giving a bunch of what if scenarios where individuals are being punished for things they could not avoid or did through no fault of their own, is useless when discussing the type of Hell Catholics believe in since we do not believe souls go to Hell for no fault of their own. Also stating your own life experiences is likewise useless in this discussion since none of us can confirm or deny anyone’s true intentions.

With that said I’m making the choice to end my envolvment in this thread.

@Jelrak TB: After going over the idea of sharing my personal experiences with God I have decided to retract my previous offer of sharing them. Right now I do not believe they will benifit you for two reasons; 1. I feel I would not be able to correclty describe them to you and 2. because the experiences I’ve had have been given to me by God to suit my individual needs which are and will be different from your own.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The judge may decide differently. Like I said, it’s not an adequate answer and not a very satisfactory one. If any of us had foreknowledge, knowing in advance what would happen, we really don’t know what we would do. We may know in hindsight what we should or could have done, but as we don’t have foreknowledge we don’t really know how we would handle things.

Fair enough.

As far as I know his son was alone on the tracks. I don’t know all the details, someone else told me the account. I know it was during a war and they were both in the army. I don’t know if he was at peace with his decision, but by all accounts he didn’t find it an easy one to make.

I suppose it was more the concept of God watching a soul headed to destruction and doing nothing to alter its course that holds my attention. Does it not seem like a parent watching a disobedient child playing in traffic?

Interesting point. I kind of have a theory that in order to know what is ultimately good, we need to know what is ultimately bad. I won’t get into that too much 'cos it’s my weird philosophy founded on nothing other than my own thinking. The opportunity to saved is present every day of our lives. Catholics also believe ‘saving’ (we don’t really like to use that word ) is ongoing. It happens throughout our lives, not just at certain points in time.

This is something to consider.