Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

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

Fair enough.

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.

Ah, OK.

Thank you for your efforts.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

This could be a possible solution, but since most such parasites predate mankind were they introduced in anticipation of the Fall?

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

Not mine, surely.

A volcano is a volcano. It is neither toxic sludge, a radioactive nuclear blowout, nor a freshly placed minefield.

Fortunately for mankind, God apparently chose to deploy these (aside from the last) upon other planets instead.

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!

If thinking such provides amusement, kindly continue to do so. This one considers that living is not a right, but a privilege. What is not clear is to whom or to what it is owed.

I do not think you grasp free will.

Was not free will encapsulated in:

e) the design was purposefully created with a desire that it might be capable of breaking of its own accord?

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

Why might one consider this world to be such an Ultimate End? Alternately, why might one consider this world to harbor any particular importance? Are there not trillions such planets?

Such as Christopher Hitchens, atheist?

Did he hold Mother Theresa in low esteem? Was his opinion that of the majority of mankind or was he largely alone in his egocentric pomposity?

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.

Is this part of town the majority?

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.

If “[m]en’s base instincts rebel against anything carrying the Divine spark,” is an accurate assessment of human nature, why might so many enjoy the natural beauty of an unspoiled vista? Would it not be assumed that God was the source of this beauty–the Divine spark behind it? If so, how many atheists are in rebellion against a beautiful sunset?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

If there is no meaning in existing for a finite period, why might there be meaning in existing indefinitely? Is there meaning for a soul in Hell? Is there meaning for a soul in Heaven whose very essence is caught up in an eternal rapture in a time-less now? Is there meaning in God’s existence?

Kindly define how the existence of a god might provide meaning for existence itself.

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.

Are one’s opinions any more relevant if they take place under the watchful eye of a divine creator? Do not all Earthly things pass away equally whether divinely observed or not?

Are not the lives of a god-fearing sinner and a mankind-loving atheist equally illusory? Is not the likely reality of the cosmos as probably removed from the one as the other?

In “Atheist World” might it not be true that you and I might care how another feels?

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.

Is it true that one is actually free to accept or reject God? Consider:

If one was offered a free ticket to a cruise, but a warning was attached that suggested any refusal of the offer would be met with prolonged torment, would the choice remain completely free?

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

Would not a labeling of what appeared good in an illusion be any less good in concept if not in fact?

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.

Without the experience of a banker, how might one make such a certain statement?

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.

True, but do not such one-sided friendships and marriages eventually fail? If such fail, is the giving side expected to cease giving in general, or might they not eventually find one who might reciprocate if they remain consistent?

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.

Agreed: the giving of charity is a valueless effort for the atheist…or is it? Might not the atheist avoid the creation of starving masses greeting him at his doorstep and demanding his very life instead of simply small tokens of consolation provided freely?

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.”

Destruction of the peaceful is always a sad affair. Was the killing of the Apolonian priests any less tragic?

stopthereligiousright.org/demolish.htm

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.

Is it not also certain that some of these might be destined as chamber pots?

Give up your futile empty thinking. Life is short.

Unless it is eternal, correct?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Nope. There are plenty of things that could get me to reject Christianity.

OK.

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.

Does one not have a greater tendency to defend what has been cherished, life-long certainty and knowledge than to gravitate towards that which is contradictory to his/her zone of comfort?

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?

This is a key observation. It is not this one’s opinion that neutrality is in the offing.

One will either hasten one’s children to be reconciled with God or instead strive to teach them to moderate their enjoyment of the pleasures of this world.

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.)

As there are examples of prominent thinkers becoming atheistic. Does this necessarily lend credibility to either claim?

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.

Is it any simpler to equate the existence of God with theism? To clarify: if a theist might find the concept of his/her own existence sufficient cause to imagine the existence of a Prime Causer (God), might not an atheist equally consider the unlikelihood of an uncaused God sufficient reason to hold to his/her atheism?

What might be more difficult to comprehend: an uncaused God or a difficult to explain existence?

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)?

Was not the question: “what proof would be sufficient to cause one to believe?” Provided was this one’s suggested proof. If one were able to be certain of even a minority of these items so listed, would it not serve as irreproachable proof that a living God loves and cares for mankind and has founded a church of his very own?

In response to your specific question: the misbehavior of atheists is troubling, but expected in an atheistic world; the misbehavior of theists in a theistic world is no less troubling, but much less expected.

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

Thank you for your clear efforts. Your certainty is to be admired. It is unfortunate that you must resign from these discussions due to certain topics being labeled taboo on a forum frequented largely by adults, but your time here was appreciated.

Your returned presence is anticipated should a future topic allow for it.

 

[clmowry]

Thank you for your clear efforts. Your certainty is to be admired. It is unfortunate that you must resign from these discussions due to certain topics being labeled taboo on a forum frequented largely by adults, but your time here was appreciated.

Your returned presence is anticipated should a future topic allow for it.

Thank you for your kind remarks.

Unfortunately many of the atheist / evolution threads had a tendency to look nothing like a reasonable discussion between “adults”. For some reason they always seemed to conclude with a lot of name calling.

I’ll be about.

If the thread should drift back on topic I’ll dive back in if I think I can add anythig of value.

This is a subject I’d like to spend a lot more time on. I hope to get to a point where I can articulate a solid defense for the necessity of hell (and suffering in general.)

For me it was never that big of a deal. Not because I’m not disgusted by all of the suffering in the world (or the potential horrors of hell), but because there only seems to be two choices to me. Suffering (and hell) is either a meaningless sadistic punishment or there is a necessity to suffering (and hell) that I simply do not understand well enough to properly explain.

The first is incompatible with the existence of a “good” God, so I accept the 2nd proposition.

That is not, however, “good enough” if I am to be of any use to those for whom “the problem of Evil” is an impediment to faith.

Somewhere swimming in my brain is general overriding principal that suffering is necessary if there is to be Love and similarly Hell is necessary if there is to be Justice.

I’m just not sure how to turn these notions into a reasonable philosophical thesis. But I’m gonna work on it. Give me a year or two and I’m sure I’ll be ready.

(A Mechanical Engineering Degree and MBA are of absolutely no help. Maybe if I win the lottery I’ll go back to school and get a PhD in Philosophy.)

Peace,

Chuck

 

[LaramieHirsch]

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

Arguing against atheism banned? On a Catholic forum? Why have an apologetics section?

I thought that there seemed to be a big silence from all the Catholics, though I wasn’t inclined to say anything about it before.

But strange. Seriously? Yes, this discussion is like fighting a hydra, as to where you cut one head off, and two or three more pop up, but still. Should not Catholics stand up for their Faith?

Also, I’m doin’ what I can to steer the talk back toward Hell’s legitimacy.

 

[Searcher360]

Can you expound upon these rather significant assertions?

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.

No distaste at all. I come to your forum for information & expect honest & blunt responses from the heart. This is a significant claim. Assuming Hell is real, and to my knowledge there is no definitive proof beyond speculation, who in their right mind would ever CHOSE to go there? I would and do not! Also, what is this “species of intelligences” you speak of"? Do we have any evidence of its existence?

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.

I can certainly agree that this group believes it is doing what God wants, but given the plethora of diverse beliefs and lack of definitive consensus I think what we see is more than hand of man than the divine. My opinion only, of course, but I do rather admire your faith an unwavering devotion. My mind does not work that way. I very much WANT faith, but cannot avoid the internal thought process seeking logic and a faith the resonates to my core as right.

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.

Agree. One cannot hold all responsible for the fault of some.

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.

**I am simply unable to fathom why a loving creator would doom people whose only “sin” is to search for what feels right to them. What you describe seems cruel and unmerciful. I can’t see God as cruel & vindictive. **

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

A most dramatic claim, and one that has been made many times before. Is there any data to support it?

Again, a most interesting discussion. Kinda hard to have these before the internet! Thanks.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Searcher360]

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.

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.

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 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

Thanks, a most interesting and engaging response, although admittedly a but far afield from the original poster’s intent. I see that for some reason atheists are banned, although I cannot fathom why. I value discussion, although I most certainly do not consider myself an atheist. I feel God exists, but struggle with religion, which I view as often more “man” and less “God”. It has been very enlightening to speak to people of faith, which admittedly is easier on the internet since the risk in offending others is less. I don’t like the name calling & nonsense I see on some boards. Inappropriate & counter productive.

I can only hope that God views my efforts to believe, understand and be at peace in a favorable light when my time comes. It almost did not that long ago, which in part precipitated my renewed search for something that resonates as true and feels right to my core.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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]

I apologize for the lack of clarity: I was attempting to paraphrase “If there is a divine being, believing in same will be a positive experience, while if there is not [a divine being] believing in same will at least not be a negative experience.”

May one also further speculate: if this divine being is pure goodness, no innocent conduct or misunderstandings might be punished, but if this being is pure judgmental fury, no misstep may be overlooked?

How certain might one be of God’s character given the two conflicting accounts present in his Bible?

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.

This is a good point, but were not most of these allegedly privy to Jesus’ most direct miracles?

Would not the lack of conversion of most other Jews be explainable by their apparent lack of similar access?

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.

Were not the Jews anticipating a similarly tumultuous arrival of the messiah? Is it not then understandable why they might not have recognized Jesus as being the one anticipated?

Is it not equally possible that the second coming might arrive in as unpredictable a fashion as confused the Jews?

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.

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.

Is it certain that the message does not change?

Was it not originally considered that vengeance was God’s alone?

Was this not later amended to: Jesus would come again to judge the living and the dead, separating the wheat from the chaff and throwing the latter into the eternal fire of Hell?

Was this not more recently reconstructed to read: Jesus would stand sorrowfully by while the goats jumped willingly into Hell against his deepest and fondest desires?

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.

Might you be able to explain why such terms might be deemed the best possible?

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.

Yet St. Thomas refused to respond to this same apparent truth and so the message was changed for him. So too St. Paul. Is it not possible that a message could have existed that would have equally changed the hearts of the pharisees?

If so, why might it not have been used, assuming God truly desired a personal relationship with each and every one?

If not, why would such a thing be impossible to God?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

If one found his beloved daughter had committed a crime and been sent to prison, is the one comforted with the knowledge that his daughter deserved her punishment? Or would he not grieve at her ruination?

If this same daughter were to serve her sentence and be released early due to a conversion of heart, would the parent not be overjoyed? Alternately, if the terms of her imprisonment were such as to afford no such release during his lifetime, would the parent experience the same joy for the remainder of his days?

What is perfect joy in Heaven? Is it the ability to forget those who have shared in one’s past life, but who have been denied entrance into Heaven?

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)

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

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]

If Jesus were at once God and man, would he not share a memory of Heaven? Would not his 33 year period of separation from such an abode of harmony and peace have been the most difficult of his existence? Would not the crucifixion have been a welcome sign that his return was imminent? Regardless of the physical suffering, would not the certain knowledge of his impending rewarding re-entrance into Heaven have been more than sufficient to carry him through whatever momentary ordeals he was to suffer?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Thank you for your kind remarks.

Unfortunately many of the atheist / evolution threads had a tendency to look nothing like a reasonable discussion between “adults”. For some reason they always seemed to conclude with a lot of name calling.

Yes, regrettably that seems often the case. How disappointing that a few bad characters are allowed to tarnish the rest. Perhaps they have not considered that the purpose of debate is largely to learn, rather than simply to win.

I’ll be about.

If the thread should drift back on topic I’ll dive back in if I think I can add anythig of value.

This is a subject I’d like to spend a lot more time on. I hope to get to a point where I can articulate a solid defense for the necessity of hell (and suffering in general.)

For me it was never that big of a deal. Not because I’m not disgusted by all of the suffering in the world (or the potential horrors of hell), but because there only seems to be two choices to me. Suffering (and hell) is either a meaningless sadistic punishment or there is a necessity to suffering (and hell) that I simply do not understand well enough to properly explain.

The first is incompatible with the existence of a “good” God, so I accept the 2nd proposition.

This is a fair consideration. Lack of understanding on a subject does not necessarily require that the subject be false. Thus far, the best argument I have heard regarding the necessity of Hell is to consider it specifically necessary in order for Heaven to function.

The consideration is that if one has a flat plain and wishes to create a mountain, there will necessarily be a hole from which the mountain material originated.

If one might consider space, itself, physicists will note that the total sum of the universe is zero (the energy and matter of all that is active in the universe is perfectly negated against the sum total of gravitational energy, considered to be negative). If a god might create a universe in such a manner, perhaps it is a necessary manner. If the same god should seek to design a positive afterlife dimension, perhaps an equally negative dimension is required in order that the two might remain stable.

Naturally this places conditions on God’s omnipotence, but it is not necessarily certain that mankind understands what omnipotence actually means.

It also does not explain the requirements to fill Hell with individuals, unless it is necessary for the sake of balance–much as it requires many to lose a marathon in order that one might win.

Further, it does not guarantee the existence of said god, but it might provide a framework in which one might further investigate the possibility.

That is not, however, “good enough” if I am to be of any use to those for whom “the problem of Evil” is an impediment to faith.

Somewhere swimming in my brain is general overriding principal that suffering is necessary if there is to be Love and similarly Hell is necessary if there is to be Justice.

I’m just not sure how to turn these notions into a reasonable philosophical thesis. But I’m gonna work on it. Give me a year or two and I’m sure I’ll be ready.

(A Mechanical Engineering Degree and MBA are of absolutely no help. Maybe if I win the lottery I’ll go back to school and get a PhD in Philosophy.)

Peace,

Chuck

I wish you luck with your endeavor.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[clmowry]

Just to be clear “aethists” are not banned just threads on atheism and evolution.

Chuck

Thanks, a most interesting and engaging response, although admittedly a but far afield from the original poster’s intent. I see that for some reason atheists are banned, although I cannot fathom why. I value discussion, although I most certainly do not consider myself an atheist. I feel God exists, but struggle with religion, which I view as often more “man” and less “God”. It has been very enlightening to speak to people of faith, which admittedly is easier on the internet since the risk in offending others is less. I don’t like the name calling & nonsense I see on some boards. Inappropriate & counter productive.

I can only hope that God views my efforts to believe, understand and be at peace in a favorable light when my time comes. It almost did not that long ago, which in part precipitated my renewed search for something that resonates as true and feels right to my core.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

(Been away this week, because I have house stuff to do.)

I think that the justice of Hell has been properly explained in this thread. It has been explained in the context of the Roman Catholic Religion.

To reach out to the faithless and explain Hell, they have to, at the least, temporarily accept the idea that Christ was real, and what He preached is true. Then, within the context of the Faith, Hell can be explored further. But without doing that, nothing will come across.

But, since discussing apologetics with atheists in the Apologetics folder is against the rules, and since there are no other Catholics chiming in here to get through at least the first steps of this discussion with atheists (as evidenced by the lull in participation from whoever participates here on this forum), then I’m guessing this thread is over.

The argument that Faith is not logical has won the day. The Catholics have been silenced.

My thoughts? Shame on the atheists for rejecting Christ. And shame on the Catholics for backing away and just staring at the hydra.

 

[Deconi]

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? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

Faith in your parent’s, is what prevents you from sticking your fingers in the electric sockets…until you are old enough to learn and understand the reasons why…and decide for yourself!

A being, super intelligent or otherwise, who does not teach you anything and then holds you to account for your actions is NOT personal or care what you do with your life. You live, you die!

One who knows there IS an afterlife, should show you, teach you, help you…until you are old enough to learn and understand the reasons why…and decide for yourself

 

[Jelrak_TB]

(Been away this week, because I have house stuff to do.)

I think that the justice of Hell has been properly explained in this thread. It has been explained in the context of the Roman Catholic Religion.

To reach out to the faithless and explain Hell, they have to, at the least, temporarily accept the idea that Christ was real, and what He preached is true. Then, within the context of the Faith, Hell can be explored further. But without doing that, nothing will come across.

But, since discussing apologetics with atheists in the Apologetics folder is against the rules, and since there are no other Catholics chiming in here to get through at least the first steps of this discussion with atheists (as evidenced by the lull in participation from whoever participates here on this forum), then I’m guessing this thread is over.

The argument that Faith is not logical has won the day. The Catholics have been silenced.

My thoughts? Shame on the atheists for rejecting Christ. And shame on the Catholics for backing away and just staring at the hydra.

Accolades for sharing such frank thoughts. Perhaps this discussion is indeed at its end. If so, please take with you my kindest regards for your participation.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[steve_b]

If one found his beloved daughter had committed a crime and been sent to prison, is the one comforted with the knowledge that his daughter deserved her punishment? Or would he not grieve at her ruination?

Keeping this within the topic, didn’t God come to us with a plan of redemption while we are up to our eyeballs in sin? Yes. That’s because He loves us tremendously. If one doesn’t take redemption on His terms, whose fault is that?
J:

If this same daughter were to serve her sentence and be released early due to a conversion of heart, would the parent not be overjoyed?

Sure.
J:

Alternately, if the terms of her imprisonment were such as to afford no such release during his lifetime, would the parent experience the same joy for the remainder of his days?

For that scenerio to happen, that wayward child had to put a pile of grief on someone else or their family…true? You’re not indicating, that there is any sorrow here from the one doing the time for the crime.
J:

What is perfect joy in Heaven? Is it the ability to forget those who have shared in one’s past life, but who have been denied entrance into Heaven?

Your questions are speculative, so anything I say here would be pure speculation also. Ever hear the comment by C. S. Lewis, “the door to hell is locked from the inside”? God eternalizes the direction a person is going in at the end of their life. People in heaven are there because they wanted what God wants. So maybe there’s the answer to your question. By the time a soul is in heaven, souls in hell don’t concern them anymore.
J:

If Jesus were at once God and man, would he not share a memory of Heaven?

Jesus said, He would send the advocate (the Holy Spirit) to cause the apostles to remember all that He taught them. Part of that is because He taught them so much and they wouldn’t be able to write it all down. [Jn 21:25]

therefore, you can see all the references to heaven
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven
J:

Would not his 33 year period of separation from such an abode of harmony and peace have been the most difficult of his existence?

Just being transparent, I suppose 33 years to a person who is Divine and infinite, is no big deal.
J:

Would not the crucifixion have been a welcome sign that his return was imminent? Regardless of the physical suffering, would not the certain knowledge of his impending rewarding re-entrance into Heaven have been more than sufficient to carry him through whatever momentary ordeals he was to suffer?

I’m sure that’s true, but I can’t begin to wrap my head around the degree of suffering He went through.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Accolades for sharing such frank thoughts. Perhaps this discussion is indeed at its end. If so, please take with you my kindest regards for your participation.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

No prob. To be honest, I’m not a great apologist. But I figure that it is a Catholic’s duty to stand up for the Faith. I would argue that the Logic that atheists are looking for is there, but my ability to grasp, funnel, sift, and explain it is not as great as many others in this world. My skill is to just pick out the inconsistencies I see. And since this is a forum, I figure it’s be best to speak out like it’s some ancient Greek square or something.

If you are interested in further discussion of this topic, or simply atheism vs Christ, feel free to privately email me, and I can direct you to a place where perhaps you’ll get more feedback.

For now, I do not think too many people here are going to be martyred for speaking out about their faith, which I find interesting, since we live in an increasingly faithless world.

-L.H.

 

[steve_b]

“If there is a divine being, believing in same will be a positive experience, while if there is not [a divine being] believing in same will at least not be a negative experience.”

May one also further speculate: if this divine being is pure goodness, no innocent conduct or misunderstandings might be punished, but if this being is pure judgmental fury, no misstep may be overlooked?

How certain might one be of God’s character given the two conflicting accounts present in his Bible?

Some see the OT anf NT as conflicting between an angry God vs a benevolent God. That’s actually a misunderstanding. Look at for example the difference between people in this country 600 years ago vs people of today. Put them side by side. Is this a comparison of bad vs good, or is it the recognition of advancement between people over the ages, and how people and things change over time?

Imagine how things were in the time of Moses.

God doesn’t change. We are the ones who change.
J:

This is a good point, but were not most of these allegedly privy to Jesus’ most direct miracles?

Would not the lack of conversion of most other Jews be explainable by their apparent lack of similar access?

In Jn 6:50… Jews saw miracles of Jesus and followed Him accross the lake. But when He gave them the rest of the story, in a face to face moment, they left Him never to return. They had access. But they also had free will.
J:

Were not the Jews anticipating a similarly tumultuous arrival of the messiah? Is it not then understandable why they might not have recognized Jesus as being the one anticipated?

Is it not equally possible that the second coming might arrive in as unpredictable a fashion as confused the Jews?

When it happens, no one will mistake the 2nd coming.
J:

Is it certain that the message does not change?

Was it not originally considered that vengeance was God’s alone?

Was this not later amended to: Jesus would come again to judge the living and the dead, separating the wheat from the chaff and throwing the latter into the eternal fire of Hell?

Since Jesus is God, there is no “later” amendment
J:

Was this not more recently reconstructed to read: Jesus would stand sorrowfully by while the goats jumped willingly into Hell against his deepest and fondest desires?

where did that come from?
J:

Might you be able to explain why such terms might be deemed the best possible?

The one offering the terms and conditions isn’t offering any others.
J:

Yet St. Thomas refused to respond to this same apparent truth and so the message was changed for him. So too St. Paul. Is it not possible that a message could have existed that would have equally changed the hearts of the pharisees?

are you refering to Thomas doubting? How was the message changed for him?
J:

If so, why might it not have been used, assuming God truly desired a personal relationship with each and every one?

If not, why would such a thing be impossible to God?

Jesus held nothing back, right up to the cross. He won’t violate a person’s free will. We need to respond to God freely with love. There’s no glory in God forcing us to do anything.

 

[minkymurph]

If one found his beloved daughter had committed a crime and been sent to prison, is the one comforted with the knowledge that his daughter deserved her punishment? Or would he not grieve at her ruination?

I hope Steve b doesn’t mind me jumping in and taking a reply to his post. It’s just that these questions are so good.

It’s unlikely a parent would derive comfort from the knowledge his daughter deserved her punishment. However, it’s unlikely a good parent would think it unjust for their daughter to be sent to prison for a crime if that is the law. For example, not many people would be of the opinion incarceration for murder unjust. That does not mean you would be delighted about your daughter being in prison, but you would probably feel more grieved by the fact she committed murder than the prison sentence.

Of course there’s all sorts of scenario’s could be introduced. To name but a few, should her actions be considered a crime, did she get a fair trial, was the sentence imposed severe? That’s why we talk about God’s judgement rather than the merely the ‘sentence’ imposed.

If this same daughter were to serve her sentence and be released early due to a conversion of heart, would the parent not be overjoyed?

Of course they would. That’s what the parable of ‘The Prodigal Son’ is all about

Alternately, if the terms of her imprisonment were such as to afford no such release during his lifetime, would the parent experience the same joy for the remainder of his days?

I don’t think they would experience joy, but is it just?

What is perfect joy in Heaven? Is it the ability to forget those who have shared in one’s past life, but who have been denied entrance into Heaven?

If I get there before you I’ll let you know.

More seriously, while Heaven is a joyful place, being in Heaven is also about the fulfillment of life. The fulfillment being reunited with God and sharing the life of God eternally. What that means is only fully realized in heaven. As for forgetting those we shared our life with, I really don’t know how we will cope with that in heaven. I just believe we will.

If Jesus were at once God and man, would he not share a memory of Heaven? Would not his 33 year period of separation from such an abode of harmony and peace have been the most difficult of his existence? Would not the crucifixion have been a welcome sign that his return was imminent? Regardless of the physical suffering, would not the certain knowledge of his impending rewarding re-entrance into Heaven have been more than sufficient to carry him through whatever momentary ordeals he was to suffer?

Catholics believe in what’s called the kenosis - the ‘emptying’ of God. Paul speaks about this. (In either Galatians, Ephesians or Philippians - I can’t remember which.) Put simply, what this means as God, God can cease to know He is God. Individual Catholics differ on when it was fully revealed to Jesus, as human, that he was God. The reality is we don’t know, but we believe in the kenosis. However, there is a prevailing belief it was at the point of death. Catholic’s also believe in the Holy Trinity, three persons of God in one. As such, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not cease to know they were God. Jesus did as he was the one that took on flesh and became Incarnate. In order to become fully human, he would have had to cease to know he was God. If he did not, then he was not fully human. This does not mean he ceased to be God, but rather ceased to know.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Some see the OT anf NT as conflicting between an angry God vs a benevolent God. That’s actually a misunderstanding. Look at for example the difference between people in this country 600 years ago vs people of today. Put them side by side. Is this a comparison of bad vs good, or is it the recognition of advancement between people over the ages, and how people and things change over time?

Imagine how things were in the time of Moses.

God doesn’t change. We are the ones who change.

If God does not change, why might it appear that his will changed regarding the shutting of mankind out of Heaven? Did he not apparently arrive in the form of Jesus with the primary purpose of reopening Heaven’s gates?

If God did had always intended Jesus to appear from the moment the gates were closed, why might they have been originally closed?

In Jn 6:50… Jews saw miracles of Jesus and followed Him accross the lake. But when He gave them the rest of the story, in a face to face moment, they left Him never to return. They had access. But they also had free will.

What might it have been that they freely chose to disbelieve? Was it that Jesus was not God?

Or was it that God was not Jesus?

In either instance, might this choice have been more likely based on in-depth information provided by Jesus, or a mere disinclination to follow what many may have considered to be a false prophet?

When it happens, no one will mistake the 2nd coming.

Might it not equally be considered that none expected to mistake the arrival of the messiah?

Since Jesus is God, there is no “later” amendment

Might not “Vengeance is mine” be considered different from “He shall come to judge the living and the dead?” Is vengeance generally associated with proper justice?

To clarify, how much revenge did God truly wish to seek against mankind for his failings? How much revenge was seemingly desired by Jesus?

where did that come from?

Was this not suggested by members of this forum?

The one offering the terms and conditions isn’t offering any others.

OK. Are these the best terms and conditions possible?

are you refering to Thomas doubting? How was the message changed for him?

Was not St. Thomas given the singular privilege of physically verifying the wounds of Christ? Who, since that time, has been granted an equal privilege? How many atheists might so remain if granted such a non-ambiguous sense of the divine?

Jesus held nothing back, right up to the cross. He won’t violate a person’s free will. We need to respond to God freely with love. There’s no glory in God forcing us to do anything.

If Jesus might not violate an individual’s free will, might it be equally said that he would support it? If not, why not?

Is there glory in God filling a fiery pit with imperfect creations?