Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

Catholics believe revelation is complete because they believe in the Incarnation. According to Catholic belief, the Incarnation was the fulfillment of Revelation - God revealing Himself in flesh was ultimate way He could reveal himself to the human race. In that sense, God’s Revelation is complete because by coming in flesh, God revealed all humans can comprehend in relation to Revelation. That’s why they believe the person of Jesus is essential to Revelation, and the Incarnation is the central belief of Catholicism. All others beliefs are seen through this prism.

However, our understanding of Revelation is ongoing, just as our understanding of anything is ongoing. To illustrate, we have known for some time humans have a liver. That fact has not changed our understanding concerning the functions of the liver has developed as a consequence of advances in medicine.

OK.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Its more interesting, often, to talk with people you do not agree with.

True. Yet your conversation in an open forum, as opposed to a heart-to-heart email exchange hint at a desire to fulfill your pride.

For what reasons exactly does empathy and caring for others require theology? Because you only do good if you want reward in heaven or are seeking to avoid punishment in hell? I’ll stick to doing good for goodness’ sake.

They don’t. In a godless worldview, caring and empathy are neither positive, nor negative traits. They are neutral and meaningless. Also “only doing good” is meaningless. There is neither good, nor bad. There is no “goodness’ sake.” The term “good” is just that–a word construed by these monkey-descended mammals. There is no evil, either. So, kindness and cruelty really are not judged by any standard in this godless nature you believe in.

And only doing what you like without regard for the consequences to others will actually do you less good than if you treat people well. If you treat people well and love them, they are more likely to do the same for you.

Doing what you like without regard will “do you less good?” What does that mean? Who cares what standard some moralist has to throw at the carefree godless? Stalin got away with plenty. So did Mao. From what I understand, Caligula and Nero had a hell of a time, too.

I firmly believe in karma in so far as what goes around comes around.

So, you believe that all of this was never created, and yet you believe that the natural world has magical powers to judge you by its own standard?

You believe in magical karma, but not a Creator…

 

[minkymurph]

As a record of a nation’s history/mythology?

I would pretty much agree with that in relation to the OT. Books of the OT are a record of a nations history/mythology. Where we may perhaps differ is our view of mythology. My position would be ‘myths’ are based on truth. Exaggerated and colorfully elaborated to paint a good story in words, yes. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you they had no 3D screens in those days, so ‘pictures’ where painted with words in stories told around the camp fire. However, I maintain there is an element of truth in all myths, and there are many examples of that

Is that to suggest that faith in the discerning powers of the Holy Spirit was at a low ebb?

I don’t think anyone can truly discern the powers of the Holy Spirit.

There were many writings around in the first century, and many of the authors claimed their teachings concerning the person of Jesus originated with the Apostles. However, some of these writings contradicted each and therefore, not all these writings could be considered Apostolic in origin. Therefore, one of the criteria in deciding the Canon of the NT was, which books were Apostolic in origin? That does not mean the Apostles personally wrote them, but the portrait of Jesus/teachings were Apostolic in origin, and had been handed on by an Apostle. For example, the author of the Gospel of Mark is reputed to have been a disciple of Peter. This was important as they were closest to Christ. For obvious reasons, this would become more difficult to discern as time went on. Therefore, the Canon was closed so books that were not Apostolic in origin would be added to the bible.

The Canon of the OT comes from books Jews believed were inspired, but it is disputed. As I’m sure you know, Catholics include what they term the Deutero-Canoninical books in the Canon of the OT, Protestants do not and term these books ‘The Apocrypha.’ The Jews did not include these books in their Canon, because they elude to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. It is also thought their may have been two Canons - one decided by the Council of Alexandria and it is possible they may have been Christian, or Jewish converts to Christianity and this Canon included the Deutero-Canoninical books. The other decided by the Council of Jamnia who which did not. It is disputed whether the Council of Jamnia actually existed. However, if it did it was made up of Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, so they would have been disinclined to include the Deutero-Canoninical books in the Canon. All other books of the OT are agreed by everyone, although the Jewish bible places the books of the OT in a different order.

All in all, I can appreciate why someone would question the authenticity of the bible, and question what would prompt us to believe it was inspired. There are no guarantees. I would say it comes down to whether or not you believe there is a God. If there is a God, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility He inspired people to write about their experience of God. However, then one has to decide if the bible is inspired, and then decide which interpretation they think is true. It’s no wonder people are confused and question as you do. All I can say to you is, if you want to work it out you will. I just wouldn’t want to place a time limit on it.

 

[jmvizanko]

They don’t. In a godless worldview, caring and empathy are neither positive, nor negative traits. They are neutral and meaningless. Also “only doing good” is meaningless. There is neither good, nor bad. There is no “goodness’ sake.” The term “good” is just that–a word construed by these monkey-descended mammals. There is no evil, either. So, kindness and cruelty really are not judged by any standard in this godless nature you believe in.

Just because I don’t have some book that defines a few moral positions specifically (it certainly doesn’t cover all of them, especially modern ones, since it was written thousands of years ago) does not mean I am incapable of arriving at what is good on my own. Utilitarianism needs no basis in theology. Good is whatever is going to make the most people happy, (of course at least in my opinion, not yours). You can derive a decent morality just from that one secular statement. This is basic common sense. My whole system of logic and morality aren’t out the window just because you think they have to be without your theological framework for them.

Doing what you like without regard will “do you less good?” What does that mean? Who cares what standard some moralist has to throw at the carefree godless? Stalin got away with plenty. So did Mao. From what I understand, Caligula and Nero had a hell of a time, too.

It means exactly what I said. If you are nice to people its a lot more likely they’ll be nice back, and vice versa if you are a jerk. What is so hard to understand about this?

And the examples you gave were a bunch of high rulers bent on power, which puts them far from a practical example of most atheists. I have never met a particularly unpleasant or harmfully selfish atheist personally.

So, you believe that all of this was never created, and yet you believe that the natural world has magical powers to judge you by its own standard?

You believe in magical karma, but not a Creator…

No, by karma I simply meant what goes around comes around. Which is exactly what I said. I don’t believe that the eastern magical concept of karma exists. And yes, I don’t believe your god exists.

 

[jmvizanko]

For anyone to reject the INFINITE love of Christ on the cross–if there was no Hell–there would be no justice!

In fact–people who reject Christ’s love deserve MORE than Hell!

That God is also merciful is evident by the fact that the sufferings in hell–though they are eternal and severe–are not INFINITE.

Love does not demand it’s own way.

God loves those who are going to be damned SO MUCH that He LETS them go to Hell because that is where they choose to go!

Yet nobody is “rebelliously rejecting” the love of Christ. Would it be accurate to say that you “reject” the love of Allah in some way that makes you deserve damnation to Muslim hell? No, you don’t think any of Islam is true. Unbelievers just simply think your religion isn’t true, we aren’t angry at your god. How could you be angry at something that doesn’t exist? Nobody would choose hell, yet your god would decide to send them there anyway, for no good reason whatsoever.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

in this case, it’s based on the originator…the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Thus the credibility of the source is to be based on the source itself? Is this not potentially problematic?

Maybe it’s better to say, we couldn’t be responsible for getting supernatural things wrong. Only God can give us those truths so that we get them right… Otherwise it’s all guesswork on our part.

It’s like when Paul said

1 Cor 15:
*13 **If ***there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And **if **Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For **if **the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And **if **Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

*32 **If ***the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

That last statement says a lot …right?

Lot’s of “Ifs”. People don’t like “Ifs”. We want facts stated confidently. That’s why we have Divine revelation. So we don’t have to guess about the life to come…

Ah, so if it is divine, follow and all shall be fine, but if it is not, what has been lost?

Why blame Jesus? Maybe it’s because the majority made no effort to know Him? We know some made the effor and got it rightt. And we know all were given the chance to get it right but many chose otherwise. The Gentiles sure got the message in a hurry.

Was not the reluctance of the Jews to convert due at least in large part to their desire to remain loyal to God The Father?

If a Christian were to be approached in the street today by a homeless individual who spoke of being Jesus returned from Heaven, would one immediately attend the new church appointed by him? Would one be able to convince one’s fellow Christians to equally convert?

If not, what evidence might one fairly expect from the individual claiming to be Christ? If no godly evidence might be produced, would the one convert if the individual claimed that the lack of evidence was purposeful in order that the decision might be made on faith?

Alternately, if evidence were produced for the one’s sole benefit, but would not be reproduced for the equal benefit of every other member the one attempted to convert, would the Jesus-claimant be justified in imagining that he had given everyone a fair chance to convert before moving on?

What then are people’s excuse 2000 years later?

Why might the ever-increasing gulf of years between the present and the time of Jesus’ preaching be cause for less of an excuse to convert to a 2000 year-old message?

The one who created all that exists, chose this way of salvation for us. And He makes it possible for all to accept the grace to accept salvation on His terms. Those are the only terms that work

Why might it be said these could be the only workable terms? Could one not imagine a myriad of different solutions with more positive outcomes?

The scribes and Pharisees you refer to, were hypocrits. They knew what to do, they had the law, but they didn’t live as they preached. Jesus knew their disposition. He’s the one who called them blind guides hypocrits, whitewashed tombs, full of deadmens bones. Papables aren’t a bad thing. They’re just problamatical for pharisees, because the deeper meaning of parables, that the willing mind understands, goes over the head of the unwilling mind who doesn’t want to understand. And in their case, because they were corrupt, they would probably twist and use the information they received against him and others who follow him anyway. So Christ says, “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you” (Mt 7:6).

Perhaps there is some validity in this, but did Jesus better explain his position to those who were not Pharisees?

I would say it’s visually neccessary for us to see and understand, how sin offends God. There is no suffering in heaven. Only incredible peace.

Would one find this peace if one knew one’s close relations were in Hell? Would finding such peace in said circumstances not necessarily make one a hypocrite?

incredible suffering however, occurs in hell.

OK, but the original question was in reference to the crucifixion: the main point being that where might a god dwelling in Heaven find opportunity to experience physical suffering? If this god should manifest itself on Earth and endure horrific suffering, would this not likely be considered a novel experience for the infinite being? If so, what is to suggest that it was particularly unpleasant or sacrificial under the circumstances?

The problem that always arises among many, they try and make God in their own image and likeness, ergo they’ve created an odol.

Well one certainly would not wish for that, would one?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t know if this has already been said, or even if the original poster is still an active participant. If they are, I know the most perfect understanding of heaven and hell that there is. Ready?

Are you sure?

Okay…

When you die, you feel the true presence, the ultimate nature, the divine I AM of God. For some this experience is eternal torture, for others…it is heaven.

This is perhaps one of the most logical arguments available from the point of view of basic consequences.

There are two chief difficulties, however. Chiefly, as has been outlined by jmvizanko, how is it possible for one to be evil enough that love would be akin to torment? The second is that it has no scriptural basis.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Did God not also make the lowly tick? Did he not also perfectly craft lime disease? If these things also scream “creator” what type of being might one expect to encounter from this evidence? Would “full of endless love” necessarily spring immediately to mind?

Ticks, mosquitos, flies, and the like, it is said, were introduced later on as a punishment of sins. However they came about, God is perfectly justified for sending them along to bother us. Not only is it His world, but we are constantly sinning, and merit punishment of many sorts–Hell being one of them.

As for Lime disease, it was actually crafted in the town of Lyme, on the Atlantic coast. Courtesy of your Federal Government.

Would this be the same designer who might unleash the fury of a volcano to similarly destroy this perfect ecosystem?

A volcano is a volcano. It is neither toxic sludge, a radioactive nuclear blowout, nor a freshly placed minefield. Mt. St. Helens is doin’ fine, last I checked. But even if the Creator *does *decide to transform the landscape, it is within His right, since it’s His creation to begin with. What is amusing is to think you have any rights at all!

Kindly consider that if the concept of design and designer is properly understood, is it not necessarily true that the one who might create a species must needs be responsible for the consequences of it following along with its intended (or otherwise) design? More simply, if mankind were designed by a perfect god, would it not be rational to assume that any actions performed by that mankind would have been desired by such a creator?

If not, would that not suggest that either:

a) the design was imperfect?
b) the design was broken by an outside force?
c) the design was purposefully created broken?
d) the design was purposefully created with a desire that it would break of its own accord?
e) the design was purposefully created with a desire that it might be capable of breaking of its own accord?

I do not think you grasp free will. I also do not think you grasp the idea that it is not this immediate world that is the Ultimate End of the Cosmos.

Is this entirely accurate given that much of the world loved Mother Theresa?

Such as Christopher Hitchens, atheist?

Also, do not most of mankind truly love their children?

Have you stepped into the bad part of town recently? The love of children there is disproportional to the love of children at Disney World.

Are not most in awe of a beautiful scene from nature? Are not most calmed by a serene summer breeze near the ocean? Is it to be assumed that none of these are to carry this Divine spark?

The sky is blue. And? If you are implying that nature has much evidence of a Creator’s love, then I agree with your implication. However, I am unsure what you are getting at here.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

…does not mean I am incapable of arriving at what is good on my own.

Again, there is no good. You arrive at nothing.

Good is whatever is going to make the most people happy, (of course at least in my opinion, not yours). You can derive a decent morality just from that one secular statement.

No. An atheist seeking to “make the most people happy” is merely placating and pandering other people–people who have no worth, by the way. In fact, people are meaningless numbers. A person can derive nothing from such a statement, other than the fact that the atheist seeks to please a bunch of worthless numbers.

No, by karma I simply meant what goes around comes around. Which is exactly what I said. I don’t believe that the eastern magical concept of karma exists.

Ah. So, you think that nature has some ingrained built-in mechanism that causes people to either suffer or prosper according to how they behave? And yet, even if it were the case, this “built-in mechanism” has no mind, spirit, or designer. It’s just “magic that is there.”

So, why would you submit yourself to this “force” of what goes around comes around, when it has no mind to even condemn you? Forces of nature are often overcome with new technologies. I see no reason why an atheist should settle for being a cream puff under such a non-judgemental empty system.

 

[jmvizanko]

No. An atheist seeking to “make the most people happy” is merely placating and pandering other people–people who have no worth, by the way. In fact, people are meaningless numbers. A person can derive nothing from such a statement, other than the fact that the atheist seeks to please a bunch of worthless numbers.

Theists always love to make proclamations like this: that everything is nothing to an atheist. Why do I need a god for life or other people to mean something? I find life beautiful, most other people beautiful, and I strive for happiness and love just like almost everyone else. If I’m looking for happiness and love and other people are too, it doesn’t take god to come to the understanding that it makes sense to try to make oneself and others happy wherever possible. I don’t have to be good because a god tells me so, the only reason you think your reason for being good is so much better than mine. Once again, I’ll stick to being good for goodness’ sake.

Ah. So, you think that nature has some ingrained built-in mechanism that causes people to either suffer or prosper according to how they behave? And yet, even if it were the case, this “built-in mechanism” has no mind, spirit, or designer. It’s just “magic that is there.”

So, why would you submit yourself to this “force” of what goes around comes around, when it has no mind to even condemn you? Forces of nature are often overcome with new technologies. I see no reason why an atheist should settle for being a cream puff under such a non-judgemental empty system.

You still aren’t understanding me. I’m not talking about any mystical “mechanism” or “force” built into the universe that rewards those that reward others. In fact, you can be as nice as you want and still get treated like **** and get unlucky in every facet of life. I mean as a generalization, you get out what you put in. If you are a good friend, you are more likely to have a good friend. If you are a good husband, you are more likely to have a good wife. And on a much more indirect level, if you say give to charity, you might make some poor soul a more successful individual, who can do his part in making the world a better place, which in some way might help you, if only slightly.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Why do I need a god for life or other people to mean something?

If I accept your philosophy, you need neither God, nor people to have meaning to your life, because there is no meaning. When you are dead, you are forgotten forever. If anyone remembers you, those who remember will eventually be forgotten. It is just a matter of time. You do not exist. Poof, in a cloud of smoke.

I find life beautiful, most other people beautiful, and I strive for happiness and love just like almost everyone else.

How you feel is irrelevant. What you think is beautiful is irrelevant. You are trapped in an illusion called “your life,” and after your life is over, the illusion is over. Like the short life of an insect. There is no Eternal Judge or Design within Creation to define your worth. In Atheist World, nothing cares about how you feel.

I don’t have to be good because a god tells me so, the only reason you think your reason for being good is so much better than mine.

Ah, stepping into my Catholic religion with this one. Yet, still you are incorrect. You do not have to be good at all, really. You have free will to do whatever you want. God has granted you that liberty. You’ve chosen to reject Him, and ignore the fact that you’ll be swept away like dirt on the floor (aiming back to the original thread topic). But being good is not a requirement for your existence.

being good for goodness’ sake

Goodness doesn’t exist for you. If you think it does, then your godless world deems you to be believing in an illusion.

You still aren’t understanding me. I’m not talking about any mystical “mechanism” or “force” built into the universe that rewards those that reward others. In fact, you can be as nice as you want and still get treated like **** and get unlucky in every facet of life. I mean as a generalization, you get out what you put in. If you are a good friend, you are more likely to have a good friend. If you are a good husband, you are more likely to have a good wife. And on a much more indirect level, if you say give to charity, you might make some poor soul a more successful individual, who can do his part in making the world a better place, which in some way might help you, if only slightly.

From what I’ve seen in life, there are many people who treat others like **** and live quite well. Banksters come immediately to mind. They get lots out of our economy, yet hardly put anything in it.

Also, there are many people who are good friends to others, but continue to get run over.

There are many spouses who put a lot into a marriage and are cheated on anyway.

Concerning your last indirect example, I did not know that one should expect anything nice to happen to them in return for charity. The opposite of this is altruism, in which one gives to someone else, expecting nothing.

I’d say that you are quite wrong on all three of your examples. In fact, one great example I can think of that contradicts what you’ve laid out here, is the example of Christ, who merely spoke about people’s sins in order to warn the world about Hell. What did he get for that? Did he pay it forward, and the good work came back to Him somehow? Nah. They brutally killed him in a manner most on this forum could not even endure. So much for “getting out what you put in.”

There is a place for little clay pots such as yourself who want to live in an illusion, rather than in the reality that there is a Clay Potter. Bad and broken clay pots get broken up and thown in the rubbish. Good clay pots and jars are filled with water and hold the flowers on the kitchen table.

Give up your futile empty thinking. Life is short.

 

[Searcher360]

But what constitutes “proof.” In years gone by I had a discussion with one of the aetheists who posted on this forum.

As with most of your theological persuasion he was looking for “proof” but also as with most others he set the burden of proof impossibly high.

He couldn’t accept ancient testimony on Christs resurection. So I offered the hypotheticals. Simplified versions are as follows:

“What if we had it on video tape” -. “Video’s can be faked.”

“What if you witnessed it personally” - “Magicians can trick people.”

“What if there was a team of physicians that verified he was dead and 3 days later was not.” - “It could be a conspiracy.”

“What if our Risen Lord appeard to you tonight in all His glory.” - “I would presume I had gone insane.”

If you set the burden of proof so high that it can never be met, then you are not searching, you are just chatting.

Thousands of brilliant scholars have embraced Catholicism for millineium. To presume that they did so simply because thats what their mama taught them is a pretty arrogant postion to take.

There is nothing in Catholicism that leads to a conflict between faith and reason. If their was, I wouldn’t be a part of it and I’d trot on over to your camp.

I would suggest you focus on what it is you think is required for a religion to be “the” religion of an Omnipotent God reaching out to a creature such as yourself without violating your free will choice to love Him or not.

What “proofs” would you expect to see?

Until you come to grips with those basic questions, I think you probably are wasting your time.

Chuck

Actually, I don’t have a “camp”, but I am searching for one.

What I’d like is something more than the unverified writings of people with arguable personal motivations (the Council of Nicaea comeds to mind) and something more recent than several hundred years ago.

I WANT to believe in more and do, in fact, believe in God. What I am troubled by, however, is religion. I view God and religion as not one and the same. I want to know and understand what God wants and expects of me free from the human inspired and serving trappings of many contemporary religions. In short, I want the peace and comfort many here espouse, but to get there I have to feel it in my heart. “Because I said so” or “Its in some 800 year old book so it has to be true” doesn’t do it for me. I view God as greater than any one religion, if this makes any sense.

Either way, a truly interesting & engaging discussion here. Thanks!

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Actually, I don’t have a “camp”, but I am searching for one.

What I’d like is something more than the unverified writings of people with arguable personal motivations (the Council of Nicaea comeds to mind) and something more recent than several hundred years ago.

I WANT to believe in more and do, in fact, believe in God. What I am troubled by, however, is religion. I view God and religion as not one and the same. I want to know and understand what God wants and expects of me free from the human inspired and serving trappings of many contemporary religions. In short, I want the peace and comfort many here espouse, but to get there I have to feel it in my heart. “Because I said so” or “Its in some 800 year old book so it has to be true” doesn’t do it for me. I view God as greater than any one religion, if this makes any sense.

Either way, a truly interesting & engaging discussion here. Thanks!

Howdy, Searcher.

I hope my harshness with a couple on here was not distasteful. This thread is about Hell, and it is real and scary, and lots of folks are choosing to go there. It is all of your fears magnified beyond your imagination. And it hurts very much. Hell is real, and a species of intelligences is jealously struggling to grab as many humans as they can to join them in that place.

Basically, the Universal Way that people have been following since before Jesus and after have followed a path toward righteousness that conflicts with the rest of the Gentile world. When Christ, the God of Everyone, came into this world as a person, He told His followers to remember Him in a particular way after He left this world. He had reasons for His specific instructions. And the Holy Spirit, an actual invisible force that resembles nothing like karma, has guided and comforted the people in this world who’ve sought to find that path which has been intentionally obscured by the Devil.

This group of people who’ve been trying to carry out what God wants is called the Catholic Church. “Catholic” is a word that simply means universal. And within this institution, just like political parties, corporations, clubs, or any organization on this planet run by human beings–within this institution are people who screw up. But the institution was started by Christ. Should men abandon the institution if it is having problems? Or, perhaps, would you abandon your family if they became dysfunctional? The answer ought to be no.

It goes without saying that, in the last half century, this institution of which I am speaking has had a multitude of problems and abuses, courtesy of the people within it. However, Christ’s command to honor Him in this Family that is the Universal Church has not yet changed.

When I converted, it was at the height of the priest abuse scandal in 2001. Yet, I realized that the Institution Itself was what mattered most. The screwed up people within it were a distraction. And so, I try not to sin, I go to be anointed by priests and I go to confess my sins that I may receive absolution, and when the time comes, I eat the Body and Blood of Christ, as He told us to do in John. Men within the Church continue to denigrate it a bit and ruin Her name, but I continue in the Church nonetheless.

Why?

Because I love God, and I would choose to go to Him, rather than reject Him and become nothing but a bunch of chaff on the floor to be swept away and burned.

All who reject their Creator will find that they are cosmically useless and only worthy of burning, like firewood. And actually, once in Hell, the pain of not having God in their life will become so apparent, that the pain they receive from eternal fire will actually be a blessing–because it will distract them from their eternal separation from God’s Mercy.

We have about 60 years to realize this before our time is up. Then, we die, and the real show begins.

 

[Vouthon]

See my thoughts on hell, beginning post 29, on this thread (page 2):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=539255&page=2

It continues overleaf. Give me your thoughts. I base my conviction on the Bible, writings of the saints, popes, theologians and the First Secret of Fatima.

 

[jmvizanko]

If I accept your philosophy, you need neither God, nor people to have meaning to your life, because there is no meaning. When you are dead, you are forgotten forever. If anyone remembers you, those who remember will eventually be forgotten. It is just a matter of time. You do not exist. Poof, in a cloud of smoke.

So because I will one day not exist, I should just not care about anything or enjoy the time I do have here? No thanks, I’ll do my best to enjoy this life and leave the world a better place. Because even though I may dissapear, there will be new people trying to enjoy life too.

How you feel is irrelevant. What you think is beautiful is irrelevant. You are trapped in an illusion called “your life,” and after your life is over, the illusion is over. Like the short life of an insect. There is no Eternal Judge or Design within Creation to define your worth. In Atheist World, nothing cares about how you feel.

Um… you mean one thing less cares about how I feel, namely god. But the people that love me care about how you feel. So where are you getting “nothing?”

Ah, stepping into my Catholic religion with this one. Yet, still you are incorrect. You do not have to be good at all, really. You have free will to do whatever you want. God has granted you that liberty. You’ve chosen to reject Him, and ignore the fact that you’ll be swept away like dirt on the floor (aiming back to the original thread topic). But being good is not a requirement for your existence.

Ad nauseum, I have not chosen to reject him. I think he doesn’t exist because of arguments like the problem of hell and evil. That’s not choosing, I simply think your religion is false because it is illogical.

Goodness doesn’t exist for you. If you think it does, then your godless world deems you to be believing in an illusion.

No, you don’t think goodness exists to me. And your thinking that is what is the illusion here.

From what I’ve seen in life, there are many people who treat others like **** and live quite well. Banksters come immediately to mind. They get lots out of our economy, yet hardly put anything in it.

Also, there are many people who are good friends to others, but continue to get run over.

There are many spouses who put a lot into a marriage and are cheated on anyway.

And I already said that there are no gaurantees, but that you are more likely to be loved if you love etc.

Concerning your last indirect example, I did not know that one should expect anything nice to happen to them in return for charity. The opposite of this is altruism, in which one gives to someone else, expecting nothing.

I didn’t say one should expect anything nice to happen to them, I said it still might indirectly happen though because you have made the world a better place.

I’d say that you are quite wrong on all three of your examples. In fact, one great example I can think of that contradicts what you’ve laid out here, is the example of Christ, who merely spoke about people’s sins in order to warn the world about Hell. What did he get for that? Did he pay it forward, and the good work came back to Him somehow? Nah. They brutally killed him in a manner most on this forum could not even endure. So much for “getting out what you put in.”

Once again, I never said that every good deed gets rewarded and vice versa…

There is a place for little clay pots such as yourself who want to live in an illusion, rather than in the reality that there is a Clay Potter. Bad and broken clay pots get broken up and thown in the rubbish. Good clay pots and jars are filled with water and hold the flowers on the kitchen table.

Interesting analogy, since it is the Clay Potter’s fault that the pot is bad. If god had wanted me to be a believer he wouldn’t have left it to, what I consider a highly unimpressive and obviously ancient book, and people from one of many equally plausible religions with unconvincing arguments to back their beliefs, to convince me. He was in control of the kiln, so how is it my fault I came out bad?

Give up your futile empty thinking. Life is short.

There’s nothing “futile” about it.

 

[clmowry]

Similarly, might it not be suggested that there could be no same proofs that might serve to lead you away from Christianity? Is this not the reason many claim that atheists “choose” to disbelieve based on the same evidence that Christians “choose” to believe?

Nope. There are plenty of things that could get me to reject Christianity.
Perhaps this might be considered arrogant, but what might be considered more accurate:

1. Thousands of brilliant scholars first heard of Christianity after becoming fully adult and came to believe in it based on clear criteria derived from years of impartial study?
2. Thousands of brilliant scholars first heard of Christianity during their developmental years and subsequently identified reasonable criteria for maintaining their belief?

Why would it matter? Your basic presumption is that anyone who is taught anything as a child is incapable of making an impartial study of their beliefs.

Is atheism supposed to be some neutral alternative you can teach children from which they can make a reasonable decision? Why would this indoctrination be any less effectual?

There are plenty of examples of prominent theologians (and Aethists) changing what they believe based on their analysis of the available data. (St. Augustine comes prominently to mind.)
Might it not similarly be claimed that there is nothing in atheism that might lead to a conflict between non-faith and reason?

I don’t think that’s true at all. I don’t see how anyone can reconcile the simple fact of our existence with atheism. With agnosticism yes, with atheism, no.

1. A single, unified religion whose members existed in obvious harmony.
2. A similar message delivered to diverse peoples worldwide from a fairly unified point in time.
3. The ability of members in good standing of said religion to be capable of making more of a difference against the world’s many problems.
4. That medicinal healings of the faithful brought about through this church would render hospitals largely redundant.
5. That true evil would be repelled from entering this church, let alone existing among its priesthood undetected.
6. That its priests would be universally trustworthy and wise–led by the Holy Spirit in all things.

You seem to be fixated on the behavior of individuals as a demonstration of the validity of a belief system. Does misbehavior by atheists invalidate your beliefs (or perhaps you feel this proves your beliefs)?

In any case this seems to be rapidly turning into and “atheist” thread which is a currently banned subject. So I’ll bow out of any further public discussion of the subject.

God bless,

Chuck

 

[steve_b]

Thus the credibility of the source is to be based on the source itself? Is this not potentially problematic?

Ah, so if it is divine, follow and all shall be fine, but if it is not, what has been lost?

the soul that never dies is what’s lost. After death of the body, the soul is fully awake and fully aware of it’s circumstances in eternity, and experiences everything…forever!

Don’t fear the one who can kill the body, Fear the one who can put your soul in hell. Mt 10:28 paraphrased]
J:

Was not the reluctance of the Jews to convert due at least in large part to their desire to remain loyal to God The Father?

Jews converted 1st. They are the ones who were faithful to the Father. Remember, the Church in the beginning was made up of 100% Jews.
J:

If a Christian were to be approached in the street today by a -]homeless individual /-] who -]spoke of being Jesus /-]returned from Heaven, would one immediately attend the new church appointed by him? Would one be able to convince one’s fellow Christians to equally convert?

Jesus already came. There won’t be another. A second coming as He said, is at the end of the world. There won’t be any doubt when that day comes.
J:

If not, what evidence might one fairly expect from the individual claiming to be Christ? If no godly evidence might be produced, would the one convert if the individual claimed that the lack of evidence was purposeful in order that the decision might be made on faith?

The real Christ already came and provided all the evidence necessary. No other one is coming.
J:

Alternately, if evidence were produced for the one’s sole benefit, but would not be reproduced for the equal benefit of every other member the one attempted to convert, would the Jesus-claimant be justified in imagining that he had given everyone a fair chance to convert before moving on?

for a short time in history, some were priveledged to see, talk with, and be taught by God in the flesh. They witnessed His death, resurrection from the dead, and ascension back to heaven. As Paul said, which I quoted previously, If that didn’t happen, then Jesus is still in the ground, no body has been raised from the dead, the apostles were fools as are all those who believed in them, so our faith is nonsense too.

As Paul said (paraphrased) If the latter is true, then there is no harm no foul, eat drink and be merry for tomorriow we die.

But if one is wrong about that, because God has given all the grace necessary to believe, and if one still won’t believe, then as they say, all hell breaks loose for that person.
J:

Why might the ever-increasing gulf of years between the present and the time of Jesus’ preaching be cause for less of an excuse to convert to a 2000 year-old message?

The message is the same forever, it doesn’t change. The terms and consequences are the same. Heaven or hell. No one goes to either by accident.
J:

Why might it be said these could be the only workable terms? Could one not imagine a myriad of different solutions with more positive outcomes?

Who are you trying to renegotiate terms with…Me? I can’t change the conditions of salvation. All I can do is follow the best I can, the one who made the terms and conditions.
J:

Perhaps there is some validity in this, but did Jesus better explain his position to those who were not Pharisees?

metaphorically speakiing, pharisees, i.e. blind guides, false witnesses, hypocrits, etc etc, are still all over the place. Does the message change for them just because they won’t change and respond to the truth? No.
J:

Would one find this peace if one knew one’s close relations were in Hell? Would finding such peace in said circumstances not necessarily make one a hypocrite?

Are you hypothetically asking, do souls in heaven who don’t find a family member there with them, no longer in complete peace?

Jesus spoke in advance of the seperation of family members that would take place because of Him. Which tells me, seperation will happen, so once you know what is true, do everything you can in this life, to persuade family members to live and believe correctly. You can’t force them, you can’t live their life for them, but you can pray for them, and influence them the best you can so that God’s grace prevails in them… In the end, God judges perfectly. Only those not alligned with God are not at peace
J:

OK, but the original question was in reference to the crucifixion: the main point being that where might a god dwelling in Heaven find opportunity to experience physical suffering?

God incarnating as a human. While Divine, He is also human. He never stops being Divine. He is 1 (Divine) person, with 2 natures (Divine and human)

When His body died on the cross, His spirit went immediately to preach to the souls in prison, those who were the disobedient waiting from the time of Noah 1 Pet 3:18-20]

His resurrected body was raised on the 3rd day. Easter is coming to commemorate the event :extrahappy:,
J:

If this god should manifest itself on Earth and endure horrific suffering, would this not likely be considered a novel experience for the infinite being? If so, what is to suggest that it was particularly unpleasant or sacrificial under the circumstances?

He actually felt and suffered completely through the prelude to, and the crucifixion. In His humanity He felt everything. If He didn’t suffer, He wouldn’t be fully human, and therefore He couldn’t be like us or represent us as one like us.

As scripture says, He’s like us in all things but sin. [Heb 4:15 paraphrased]

 

[clmowry]

Actually, I don’t have a “camp”, but I am searching for one.

My appologies if I’ve branded you, there seems to be so many atheists/agnostics posting on the threads recently that I’ve probably mixed your comments up with one or more of the others.

What I’d like is something more than the unverified writings of people with arguable personal motivations (the Council of Nicaea comeds to mind) and something more recent than several hundred years ago.

I would submit that the ancient writings of the Church are anything but “unverified” and I would spend some time investigating the personal motivations of those Christians who testefied on the behalf of Christ prior to Constantine i.e. Those who were likely to we rewarded for that testimony with death.

That said, if you want something more recent than several hundred years ago, then you’ve pretty much eliminated all world religions.

Even most novel modern theologies (Mormonism for example) have their roots in a more ancient religion.

I WANT to believe in more and do, in fact, believe in God. What I am troubled by, however, is religion.

Been there done that. I was raised a nominal Catholic but I was very much an aethist (maybe agnostic with a sever prejudice towards aethist) from about age 12-28.

I view God and religion as not one and the same. I want to know and understand what God wants and expects of me free from the human inspired and serving trappings of many contemporary religions. In short, I want the peace and comfort many here espouse, but to get there I have to feel it in my heart. “Because I said so” or “Its in some 800 year old book so it has to be true” doesn’t do it for me. I view God as greater than any one religion, if this makes any sense.

Either way, a truly interesting & engaging discussion here. Thanks!

I think this is the natural and logical consequence of belief in God. Once you acknowledge he exists (He pretty much had to beat me over the head with that fact tell I got it.) It seems hard to believe that He exists and does not care what we do.

For me, it seemed he “must have” given us a way to know what he expects. I investigated the various religions out there particularly with that end in mind.

I did not look for what “proof” there was that they were valid, that to me seems impossible to find.

Instead I attempted to measure what they teach for consistency and breath of reach. i.e. If it is of a God who cares, it must be self consistent and offer universal timeless application.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on world religions, but over the course of about 3 years search the possible choices seemed to dwindle rather rapidly. (It took me about a year to work my way back to Christianity, about another 2 to the Catholic Church, cause well, I had to admit I’d been wrong to reject it in the first place, and that’s just no fun at all.)

Good luck and God bless.

Let me know if I can be of any help,

Chuck

 

[Jelrak_TB]

For anyone to reject the INFINITE love of Christ on the cross–if there was no Hell–there would be no justice!

If one’s heart were full of perfect love for another, who subsequently rejected all advances, would one be more apt to:

a) Torment the beloved?
b) Continue to wish the beloved well from afar while providing continuous opportunity for a change of heart?

In fact–people who reject Christ’s love deserve MORE than Hell!

What might cause one to wish more than eternal torment on another?

That God is also merciful is evident by the fact that the sufferings in hell–though they are eternal and severe–are not INFINITE.

Love does not demand it’s own way.

God loves those who are going to be damned SO MUCH that He LETS them go to Hell because that is where they choose to go!

What sane individual might willingly choose to descend to a realm of eternal suffering? If not sane, then what compassionate and loving god might allow the non-sane to choose such a path?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 87, The debt of punishment:

Article 4. Whether sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity?

Objection 1. It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jeremiah 10:24): “Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing.” Now God’s anger or fury signifies metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes infinite power. Therefore according to God’s vengeance, sin is awarded a punishment infinite in quantity.

Why might an omnipotent deity seek vengeance? Additionally, why might a loving deity seek vengeance?

Objection 2. Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: “According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be.” Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God’s greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God.

Is it not necessarily true that the reason that insulting a sovereign might be more egregious is simply because said sovereign would have more of a need to maintain a public dignity for fear that others might equally test his authority (and eventually unseat him)? In addition, is it not equally true that said sovereign would have more power with which to retaliate than would a lowly peasant? Therefore is not the accepted wisdom: tread on the peasant, certainly, but bow down low to the sovereign?

Is it to be understood that God is equally insecure in his power?

Objection 3. Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration, and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration. Therefore it is infinite in quantity also.

On the contrary, If this were the case, the punishments of all mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than another.

I answer that, Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the “pain of loss,” which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the “pain of sense,” which is also finite.

Reply to Objection 1. It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice requires, as stated above (Article 3). The expression “to be brought to nothing” is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to 1 Corinthians 13:2: “If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing.”

Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers sin as turning away from something, for it is thus that man sins against God.

Reply to Objection 3. Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain, for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever; wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does not incur punishment of infinite quantity.

Is it not possible to have a child turn away from a parent, but, through some small effort, the parent is able to have the child return?

Additionally, is it not possible that even the most rebellious child who has turned from a truly loving parent might seek a reconciliation after experiencing the consequences of rebellion?

Further, is anything beyond the power of God?

And finally, is it possible to withstand infinite love, understanding, compassion, and mercy when standing within its very presence?