Explain the justice of hell.

[Cristiano]

I’m an ex Catholic. And I’ve debated with Christians and atheists for years…

Just because you call yourself an ex-Catholic and because you have debated atheist and Christians in the past that does not make you an educated Catholic. Please be aware that I am not trying to put you down, I am just saying that your statement is not sufficient to show sufficient knowledge.
I also know a lot of Catholics that have being faithful their own life, they do a lot of good and they are quite ignorant of Catholic theology. However, they will probably be in heaven well before quite a few educated Catholics.
What I notice here is that you appear to be one of those people that I would call intellectually honest and that is why I keep communicating with you. I think that your quest for an understanding is fundamentally good and I hope that at one point you will be comfortable with either your beliefs or with your doubts, because I am sure that in the end you will not have the certainty that I think you are seeking.

 

[promethius]

The problem is that atheists don’t think your god exists. I’d love to meet a god or go to heaven if I thought they existed. But once again, it comes down to what we think is true, which we cannot choose, not what we choose. What person would in their right mind would choose to go to hell? Atheists are not atheists because they don’t want rules, they just honestly don’t think your religion is true.

I see, you’re one of those “If there is no empirical evidence, then it doesn’t exist” type of atheists.

The problem is that such a statement is, itself, a faith based statement. I’ll be the first to admit that there is little empirical evidence for God, and none that admits of no possibility for skepticism… that is, after all, why they call it a “belief” in God. If I had empirical evidence, it wouldn’t be belief, it would be knowledge.

But the absence of empirical evidence is not DISPROOF of God either. In fact, if we were to take the truly rational position on God, we’d all be agnostics (on the basis that God is outside of the universe, and therefore not subject to empirical detection as to whether or not He is there). The best that we can empirically do is to look at the lack of empirical evidence and say that a “scientific” answer is not going to happen… in other words, the purely rationalist answer is “we won’t know until we die.”

HOWEVER, there is also another kind of proof… you know, ones which often decide court cases for juries, and ones which you make decisions about every single day. These are what I would call “compelling proofs”… things which are not empirically undeniable, but about which, when compiled, paint a pretty good picture of what’s going on. These compelling proofs, in my not so humble opinion, paint a clear picture that God exists (not necessarily my God, but at least A GOD. Discerning the traits of God is a wholly separate issue than discerning if God exists)…

The problem you’re faced with, then, is that there IS evidence FOR God… real evidence too. Miracles abound, be it the miracle of the sun, the healings at Lourdes, the bleeding Eucharist at Lanciano (which is unrotten flesh, even though it has been around for centuries), the healing of even the amputee Miguel Juan Pellicer of Calanda, and a bevvy of others. We can couple this experiential evidence with the classical cosmological arguments, the arguments of Aquinas, etc etc to arrive at a compelling argument that God exists… or we can deny the compelling evidence and steadfastly hold resolute to the idea that because there is no empirical evidence directly available to us, that God must not exist.

You’ve chosen the latter… and yet you tell me it wasn’t your choice to determine, based on no empirical evidence whatsoever, that the positive logical syllogism “there is no God” is the right and only answer you can come to. Don’t be silly! Taking that position, rather than the agnostic position, is most CERTAINLY a choice you’ve made along the way. At least you could say with pride that you didn’t take the intellectually lazy route of forever accepting agnosticism, that you at least made a choice…

 

[jmvizanko]

Just because you call yourself an ex-Catholic and because you have debated atheist and Christians in the past that does not make you an educated Catholic. Please be aware that I am not trying to put you down, I am just saying that your statement is not sufficient to show sufficient knowledge.
I also know a lot of Catholics that have being faithful their own life, they do a lot of good and they are quite ignorant of Catholic theology. However, they will probably be in heaven well before quite a few educated Catholics.
What I notice here is that you appear to be one of those people that I would call intellectually honest and that is why I keep communicating with you. I think that your quest for an understanding is fundamentally good and I hope that at one point you will be comfortable with either your beliefs or with your doubts, because I am sure that in the end you will not have the certainty that I think you are seeking.

And I will definitely not claim I am an expert. But I do think I have a good general understanding, and enough of one that I can enter into an argument on certain topics. But I will always stand corrected if I make a mistake about what someone, or a specific church or group believes.

And thanks for giving me some credit in the intellectual honesty department. I’d certainly like to think I am.

And I am comfortable with my lack of belief, but I am always interested to see the counterarguments.

 

[jmvizanko]

I see, you’re one of those “If there is no empirical evidence, then it doesn’t exist” type of atheists.

The problem is that such a statement is, itself, a faith based statement. I’ll be the first to admit that there is little empirical evidence for God, and none that admits of no possibility for skepticism… that is, after all, why they call it a “belief” in God. If I had empirical evidence, it wouldn’t be belief, it would be knowledge.

But the absence of empirical evidence is not DISPROOF of God either. In fact, if we were to take the truly rational position on God, we’d all be agnostics (on the basis that God is outside of the universe, and therefore not subject to empirical detection as to whether or not He is there). The best that we can empirically do is to look at the lack of empirical evidence and say that a “scientific” answer is not going to happen… in other words, the purely rationalist answer is “we won’t know until we die.”

I don’t know why you are assuming that I think with any certainty that god does not exist. I am an implicit atheist, and as such my beliefs can be described as “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” I don’t think with certainty that no god exists, I just see no reason to think one does.

HOWEVER, there is also another kind of proof… you know, ones which often decide court cases for juries, and ones which you make decisions about every single day. These are what I would call “compelling proofs”… things which are not empirically undeniable, but about which, when compiled, paint a pretty good picture of what’s going on. These compelling proofs, in my not so humble opinion, paint a clear picture that God exists (not necessarily my God, but at least A GOD. Discerning the traits of God is a wholly separate issue than discerning if God exists)…

The problem you’re faced with, then, is that there IS evidence FOR God… real evidence too. Miracles abound, be it the miracle of the sun, the healings at Lourdes, the bleeding Eucharist at Lanciano (which is unrotten flesh, even though it has been around for centuries), the healing of even the amputee Miguel Juan Pellicer of Calanda, and a bevvy of others. We can couple this experiential evidence with the classical cosmological arguments, the arguments of Aquinas, etc etc to arrive at a compelling argument that God exists… or we can deny the compelling evidence and steadfastly hold resolute to the idea that because there is no empirical evidence directly available to us, that God must not exist.

You’ve chosen the latter… and yet you tell me it wasn’t your choice to determine, based on no empirical evidence whatsoever, that the positive logical syllogism “there is no God” is the right and only answer you can come to. Don’t be silly! Taking that position, rather than the agnostic position, is most CERTAINLY a choice you’ve made along the way. At least you could say with pride that you didn’t take the intellectually lazy route of forever accepting agnosticism, that you at least made a choice…

I did not choose to “refuse” your arguments for why god exists, I simply don’t find them convincing. Which is once again, not something I can choose. Either I think your side or my side of the argument wins. How can I choose that?

Just because the universe is beautiful does not mean that it was made. And for any “miracle” you list, some child dies somewhere from a painful and incurable disease, or some natural catastrophe destroys the lives of thousands or millions. And I have poised one of the largest arguments that I find convincing for thinking your god specifically (not necessarily any god) does not exist, in this thread. If you have a response to it, lets hear it. The arbitrarily, infinitely cruel injustice of hell is the best argument for why your god does not exist in my opinion. If you want to tackle other proofs, I’m sure I’ll show up in other threads dedicated to them.

 

[Contarini]

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?

He wouldn’t. You are attacking a straw man position.

Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary,

No, it’s not arbitrary. There’s a huge “grey zone” between demonstrative proof and arbitrary “blind faith,” and that’s where reasonable faith resides.

And the faith that is rewarded by eternal life is (as both Catholics and Protestants agree) not simply belief in doctrines but trust in God’s mercy that bears fruit in good works. Many Christians believe that atheists and other non-Christians may possess such faith even if they are confused about its object.

When an atheist acts justly in a manner not justified by the utilitarian ethics his/her own ideology can support, that person is acting by faith, whether they admit it or not.

and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed?

There’s nothing arbitrary about believing what your parents believed. It’s an entirely reasonable action, unless and until you come across evidence to do otherwise.

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?

Again, this is a straw man.

It’s not about proportion. It’s about who you become and thus will be for eternity (if there is an eternity).

As C. S. Lewis said: “All get what they want. Not all like it.”

That’s the justice of hell in a nutshell.

If you want to be totally isolated from God, then that’s what you will get. It’s called hell. Many atheists don’t really want that. Therefore, I trust that they will not get it. (And conversely, it is terrifyingly possible that many people who say they want union with God don’t really want union with the true God.) I’m not even sure that Christopher Hitchens wanted that, even though he said he did. I hope that what he really wanted was freedom from the evil tyrant he mistakenly believed God to be. I don’t think the possibility of what I believe to be the real God ever crossed Hitchens’ mind. Hence, I hope for his salvation and pray for his soul.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m an ex Catholic. And I’ve debated with Christians and atheists for years.

Well, either you have debated with some very poor representatives of Christianity (intellectually speaking) or you are slow to learn. Because your opening gambit on this thread was one of the more ludicrous straw men I’ve seen for a long while.

Have you really never encountered the argument that “the doors of hell are locked from the inside”? C. S. Lewis, who made this argument, is not exactly an obscure figure.

Or do you just dismiss it for some reason? What is that reason?

Edwin

 

[jmvizanko]

A lot of terms are getting thrown around here, and are often used by atheist, that should be of limits to the atheist.

Here are a Few

Logic
Reason
Truth
Good
Evil

All of these terms presuppose the transcendent.

Logic is a Law that posits a Law giver.

** The Laws of Logic**: Laws of thought and reason that are immaterial, aspatial, atemporal, universal, obligatory, necessary, immutable, and absolute. They are independent of human minds and are ubiquitous throughout all experience. All rational thinking (and communication) presupposes and uses the laws of logic.

Reason: The ability to understand and explain cogently, based on evidence and according to logical principles; ** One must use the Law of Logic to invoke Reason. To remove God from the equation, Reason must appeal to logic for proof and you end up with a circular argument. **

Truth What is truth? Again to posit a claim on truth,** one must appeal to the Law of logic and reason to do so.**

Good also presupposes the transcendent, otherwise things must simply BE, no good, no evil, just being, and existence or being itself cant be explained away in an atheistic world view. One must presuppose God in order to do so.

Justice? Really, can an atheistic world view account for justice? It implies** morality of right and wrong, Good and Evil, and VALUE**. All of which posit a ground for such things that transcend man, ie: God

Why should any Christian have to defend the** JUSTICE **of hell to atheist? First the Atheist must provide a framework that can explain Logic apart from God.

First off, thanks for insultingly suggesting that words like logic, reason, truth, evil, and good are off limits to me, just because I don’t believe in your god. If you want to argue semantics and paint atheists as completely illogical in every facet, have fun. The rest of us will proceed to discuss the topic.

And the idea that logic is dependent on a creator is extremely easy to prove false. Just look at the value of Pi. No god or being could change the value of Pi in any universe. The circumference divided by the diamter in a 2d plane in Euclidean geometry will always be 3.1415… This is a purely logical construction that does not depend on any being or physical universe. It is impossible that Pi could ever be anything else. Therefore, god did not specify it and logic can exist without God having anything to do with it.

 

[jmvizanko]

Well, either you have debated with some very poor representatives of Christianity (intellectually speaking) or you are slow to learn. Because your opening gambit on this thread was one of the more ludicrous straw men I’ve seen for a long while.

Have you really never encountered the argument that “the doors of hell are locked from the inside”? C. S. Lewis, who made this argument, is not exactly an obscure figure.

Or do you just dismiss it for some reason? What is that reason?

Edwin

Yes I’ve heard the quote. And it comes from a man that clearly thinks atheists have chosen out of rebellion or stubborness to not believe what he believes. Instead of the atual reason, which is that they actually don’t think its true. And the quote is somewhat irrelevant, as in it suggests that if somebody in hell would want to leave, they have the capability. Unless you are suggesting that they do. Because I would imagine close to 100% of people in hell would want out, because they honestly didn’t know they would end up there. But according to what you believe, there is no way out. An honest and unchosen mistake puts you there forever. And that is justice somehow yet to be explained.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

The souls that go to Hell have chosen to do so. Every soul in Hell has been given by God during their existence, sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell. Those who do not understand the justice of Hell usually do not understand the nature of the type of being Hell was created for, and that is the Devil and his angels.

Angels are incredibly intelligent creatures that can arrive at conclusions and answers quicker than a human being. When they sinned they did so with full knowledge and they were unrepentant and selfish. Likewise the humans that send themselves to Hell do so because they sinned with full knowledge and were unrepentant. They do not care that they offended God and they do not love God. The souls of the damned would rather be in Hell than with God in Heaven because there is no love in them. The nature of God is contrary to their nature and for them to be in God’s presence would be a greater torment to them than to be in Hell. They despise God, they hate you, and they would rather have you join them in Hell than have you go to Heaven.

If you find it hard to believe that a soul would rather prefer Hell than Heaven then you need only look at the behavior of an obstinate sinner who wants to live their life independent from God, hates sacred images, profanes the name of God, and who has an aversion to all things holy including Church. Like Cain after he killed his brother, they wander the earth trying to flee the very presence of God because of their guilty conscience.

A common motto amongst obstinate sinners is:

I’d rather rule in hell than be a servant in heaven.

 

[onemangang]

First off, thanks for insultingly suggesting that words like logic, reason, truth, evil, and good are off limits to me, just because I don’t believe in your god. If you want to argue semantics and paint atheists as completely illogical in every facet, have fun. The rest of us will proceed to discuss the topic.

Never said they were off limit. One has to borrow from a Judeo-Christian worldview to codify Logic, reason, truth, evil, and good!

And the idea that logic is dependent on a creator is extremely easy to prove false. ** Just look at the value of Pi. No god or being could change the value of Pi in any universe.** The circumference divided by the diamter in a 2d plane in Euclidean geometry will always be 3.1415… This is a purely logical construction that does not depend on any being or physical universe. It is impossible that Pi could ever be anything else. Therefore, god did not specify it and** logic can exist without God having anything to do with it**.

Ok, the value you speak of, is only re-cognized, thought again. It was already thought into existence by God. Second, it sounds like the argument that ask “can God make a square circle, or a rock so large, He cant lift it?” Why would God undo a governing Law that He created, like logic? God is not illogical. Because the universe has governing principals of logic, one can surmise, God is logical. What is your ground for logic? Logic just dissolves into circular reasoning, apart from God being the ground of logic, mathematics and all truth!

I don’t accept your premise that logic can exist without God having anything to do with it. I think that, is highly illogical. But that is not the topic of the thread, so I will not digress any further!

As for continuing the discussion, the thread is Explain the Justice of Hell. If you would like to lay out how the Laws of logic are possible, apart from God being their ground, you could start a thread in Philosophy

 

[jmvizanko]

The souls that go to Hell have chosen to do so. Every soul in Hell has been given by God during their existence, sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell. Those who do not understand the justice of Hell usually do not understand the nature of the type of being Hell was created for, and that is the Devil and his angels.

Angels are incredibly intelligent creatures that can arrive at conclusions and answers quicker than a human being. When they sinned they did so with full knowledge and they were unrepentant and selfish. Likewise the humans that send themselves to Hell do so because they sinned with full knowledge and were unrepentant. They do not care that they offended God and they do not love God. The souls of the damned would rather be in Hell than with God in Heaven because there is no love in them. The nature of God is contrary to their nature and for them to be in God’s presence would be a greater torment to them than to be in Hell. They despise God, they hate you, and they would rather have you join them in Hell than have you go to Heaven.

If you find it hard to believe that a soul would rather prefer Hell than Heaven then you need only look at the behavior of an obstinate sinner who wants to live their life independent from God, hates sacred images, profanes the name of God, and who has an aversion to all things holy including Church. Like Cain after he killed his brother, they wander the earth trying to flee the very presence of God because of their guilty conscience.

A common motto amongst obstinate sinners is:

I’d rather rule in hell than be a servant in heaven.

This demonstrates the sadly common complete lack of why atheists are atheists, painting them as terrible people who oppose god out of rebellion and a desire to do all sorts of evil. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Atheists, and other non Christians are unbelievers of Christianity because they do not think your religion is true. I do not “oppose” god or “reject” god. And you claim we have all been given some chance to find your god, and assume therefore that anyone that doesn’t knows your religion is true and simply decides to rebel out of selfishness and evil. This is simply not true. I disbelieve because I have not been given a good reason to, and that is it. You can choose not to believe that, but at least I know you are flat out wrong. You might have the most detestable image of atheists I have ever heard, and every misinformed statement you make about them to justify it is false.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t think I’m confused about the nature of heaven, I just disagree with your notion of it. But, even granting your notion of Heaven, the same results follow so I’m not sure the point is very significant. This is because a rational person could never value eternal conscious torment over union with Jesus. That’s just craziness.

IT may be crazy, but people do crazy things. Believe it or not, it is possible to refuse God and there are probably some who have. In fact, I’d guess many. No human being can know for sure who they are but it is possible. The Church has always taught that it is possible to go to Hell. Why? Because Christ himself said so.

29And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

30And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Quotes from the Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899.

 

[sw85]

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?

There are plenty of reasons to believe in God. Edward Feser’s “Aquinas” details several of them. You are of course not going to be convinced if you approach it with the hermeneutic that “if I can’t observe it there’s no reason to believe in it.” (That hermeneutic, for the record, is false, as witnessed by the fact that it’s self-refuting because you can’t, after all, observe the truth of it). You can go on saying “I can’t choose to believe,” but no one’s saying you can. Intellect precedes will after all. You can choose to put yourself in a position where you can come to believe. That means reading books, lots of them, heavy and dry ones like the Feser book I mentioned above. You can also choose to acknowledge that that which is obvious nonsense (such as “if I can’t observe it, it must not be true”) is not worthy of belief. And so on.

Hell is the natural destination for those who reject salvation. Justice is simply the principle according to which each is given what he is due. Therefore justice demands that those who reject salvation go to Hell.

As it happens, I don’t think Hell has to be painful, at least not in a physical sense, in order to be Hell. Evil is its own punishment, after all, so it’s enough for Hell simply to be the place where evil is. But I think God’s love demands that it be painful in at least a spiritual sense, i.e., a place of grief. Love, after all, is an act of the will – willing what is best for another. What is best for another is determined by their nature. Our nature is such that we are rational beings subject to moral law and the consequences attendant on it. Therefore God’s love for us requires that we be punished when we do wrong. He loves us so much He will not permit us to enter eternity under the false and evil delusion that evil is anything other than what it is, or that it can triumph over good.

 

[iloveangels]

There are plenty of reasons to believe in God. Edward Feser’s “Aquinas” details several of them. You are of course not going to be convinced if you approach it with the hermeneutic that “if I can’t observe it there’s no reason to believe in it.” (That hermeneutic, for the record, is false, as witnessed by the fact that it’s self-refuting because you can’t, after all, observe the truth of it). You can go on saying “I can’t choose to believe,” but no one’s saying you can. Intellect precedes will after all. You can choose to put yourself in a position where you can come to believe. That means reading books, lots of them, heavy and dry ones like the Feser book I mentioned above. You can also choose to acknowledge that that which is obvious nonsense (such as “if I can’t observe it, it must not be true”) is not worthy of belief. And so on.

Hell is the natural destination for those who reject salvation. Justice is simply the principle according to which each is given what he is due. Therefore justice demands that those who reject salvation go to Hell.

As it happens, I don’t think Hell has to be painful, at least not in a physical sense, in order to be Hell. Evil is its own punishment, after all, so it’s enough for Hell simply to be the place where evil is. But I think God’s love demands that it be painful in at least a spiritual sense, i.e., a place of grief. Love, after all, is an act of the will – willing what is best for another. What is best for another is determined by their nature. Our nature is such that we are rational beings subject to moral law and the consequences attendant on it. Therefore God’s love for us requires that we be punished when we do wrong. He loves us so much He will not permit us to enter eternity under the false and evil delusion that evil is anything other than what it is, or that it can triumph over good.

Traditionally, the Church has always believed that Hell is painful in every sense. It’s separation from God, who created everything and sets it in order. I don’t think I want to find out how painful it is, or in what way it’s painful. That’s something I can just try to avoid, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

This demonstrates the sadly common complete lack of why atheists are atheists, painting them as terrible people who oppose god out of rebellion and a desire to do all sorts of evil. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You’re the one who applied my comments to certain groups of people not me. An obstinate sinner can be found within any race, religion, creed, or gender.

Atheists, and other non Christians are unbelievers of Christianity because they do not think your religion is true. I do not “oppose” god or “reject” god. And you claim we have all been given some chance to find your god, and assume therefore that anyone that doesn’t knows your religion is true and simply decides to rebel out of selfishness and evil.

Wrong! I stated anyone in Hell is there because they rebelled against God while having full knoweldge of their sin and being unrepentant for it. I make no judgements on those still living their lives and the choices those people have made thus far in their journey.

This is simply not true. I disbelieve because I have not been given a good reason to, and that is it. You can choose not to believe that, but at least I know you are flat out wrong. You might have the most detestable image of atheists I have ever heard, and every misinformed statement you make about them to justify it is false.

You my friend have completely taken my statement out of context and I think you should take a break and come back when you have calmed down.

 

[jmvizanko]

You’re the one who applied my comments to certain groups of people not me. An obstinate sinner can be found within any race, religion, creed, or gender.

You are equating obstinate sinner with non-Christian. Perhaps that’s the “group” I should have said. And can a Christian be an obstinate sinner? Can a non-Christian not be an obstinate sinner?

You claim that “Every soul in Hell has been given by God during their existence, sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell.” But if I go to hell then that’s not true, because I have not been given sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid it. The knowledge I have been given makes me think hell doesn’t even exist. And ad nauseum, I did not choose to think that, its just what I think is true.

Wrong! I stated anyone in Hell is there because they rebelled against God while having full knoweldge of their sin and being unrepentant for it. I make no judgements on those still living their lives and the choices those people have made thus far in their journey.

How could I rebel against god while having full knowledge of my sin if I don’t even think either one exists? Sure I have done bad things in my life, but they aren’t sins, and I feel bad about them and do my best to repent, but not to god.

You my friend have completely taken my statement out of context and I think you should take a break and come back when you have calmed down.

You said the following. “The souls of the damned would rather be in Hell than with God in Heaven because** there is no love in them**. The nature of God is contrary to their nature and for them to be in God’s presence would be a greater torment to them than to be in Hell. They despise God,** they hate you**, and they would rather have you join them in Hell than have you go to Heaven.”

What exactly did I take out of context? You claim that unbelievers would rather burn in hell, have no love in them, hate believers, and would love to take more people to eternal torture if they could. These are all pretty terrible claims. However, none of these things are true, and I’m just one example. I would much rather go to heaven than burn in hell. I have plenty of love for my family, friends, wife, and pets. I don’t hate Christians, hell I’m even married to one. And how could I want to take anybody to hell with me if I don’t even think it exists?

And I was, and am, plenty calm.

 

[jmvizanko]

Ok, the value you speak of, is only re-cognized, thought again. It was already thought into existence by God.

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

Second, it sounds like the argument that ask “can God make a square circle, or a rock so large, He cant lift it?”

No, its arguing that a square is a square no matter if anyone ever thinks about it or discovers it. Its a purely logical construct. God did not create it, and did not define it. It is what it is.

God cannot make a square circle any set of points that fits the concept of a circle cannot me made to fit the concept of a square, neither of which he, once again, created or defined. How could god have created any of these mathematical constructs? If he did, then the moment they came into existence, they would be true regardless of what he had to say. Which is precisely the reason why they were true before him as well. You can remove time entirely (since you think he has existed forever), it doesn’t matter.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

You are equating obstinate sinner with non-Christian. Perhaps that’s the “group” I should have said. And can a Christian be an obstinate sinner? Can a non-Christian not be an obstinate sinner?

Wrong again. You are trying to put words in my mouth and I really do not appreciate it. As I said before an obstiante sinner can be anyone including a Catholic. There are Catholics in Hell fyi.

You claim that “Every soul in Hell has been given by God during their existence, sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid Hell.” But if I go to hell then that’s not true, because I have not been given sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid it. The knowledge I have been given makes me think hell doesn’t even exist. And ad nauseum, I did not choose to think that, its just what I think is true.

Mortal sin is the only sin that will send you to Hell. There are three conditions necessary in order for a sin to be mortal and those are:

1. 
   *]Grievous matter
   *]Sufficient reflection
   *]Full consent of the will
   
   Note ignorance is not listed as one of the three conditions. Yet we can be sure that the souls in Hell have committed all three in regards to their sins. God is Just and therefore we can conclude that no soul in Hell is there because of ignorance, unless said ignorance was willful.
   

   How could I rebel against god while having full knowledge of my sin if I don’t even think either one exists? Sure I have done bad things in my life, but they aren’t sins, and I feel bad about them and do my best to repent, but not to god.

   You do your best to repent for sins you do not beleive exist? Sounds kind of hypocritical of you.
   

   You said the following. “The souls of the damned would rather be in Hell than with God in Heaven because** there is no love in them**. The nature of God is contrary to their nature and for them to be in God’s presence would be a greater torment to them than to be in Hell. They despise God,** they hate you**, and they would rather have you join them in Hell than have you go to Heaven.”
   
   What exactly did I take out of context? You claim that unbelievers would rather burn in hell, have no love in them, hate believers, and would love to take more people to eternal torture if they could. These are all pretty terrible claims. However, none of these things are true, and I’m just one example. I would much rather go to heaven than burn in hell. I have plenty of love for my family, friends, wife, and pets. I don’t hate Christians, hell I’m even married to one. And how could I want to take anybody to hell with me if I don’t even think it exists?

   You’ve taken everything out of context! You’re taking what I say about the souls in Hell (Demons, unrepented sinners, etc) and accusing me of applying these things to athiests an non-Christians that are alive, which isn’t what I have said or done! A soul IN HELL, not a soul living but a SOUL IN HELL, loves no one.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Traditionally, the Church has always believed that Hell is painful in every sense. It’s separation from God, who created everything and sets it in order. I don’t think I want to find out how painful it is, or in what way it’s painful. That’s something I can just try to avoid, thanks, but no thanks.

You are correct. Punishment “is twofold: a) Privation of God, and b) pain of sense–true and corporeal fire”

Source: The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R Willis, S.J.

Chapter 112. There is No Ground in Scripture for the Opinion of Those Who Deny the Eternity of Future Punishments.

It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion of their own feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, and give a milder turn to statements which they think are rather designed to terrify than to be received as literally true. For “Hath God” they say, forgotten to be gracious? Has He in anger shut up His tender mercies? Now, they read this in one of the holy psalms. But without doubt we are to understand it as spoken of those who are elsewhere called “vessels of mercy,” because even they are freed from misery not on account of any merit of their own, but solely through the pity of God. Or, if the men we speak of insist that this passage applies to all mankind, there is no reason why they should therefore suppose that there will be an end to the punishment of those of whom it is said, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment;” for this shall end in the same manner and at the same time as the happiness of those of whom it is said, “but the righteous unto life eternal.” But let them suppose, if the thought gives them pleasure, that the pains of the damned are, at certain intervals, in some degree assuaged. For even in this case the wrath of God, that is, their condemnation (for it is this, and not any disturbed feeling in the mind of God that is called His wrath), abides upon them; that is, His wrath, though it still remains, does not shut up His tender mercies; though His tender mercies are exhibited, not in putting an end to their eternal punishment, but in mitigating, or in granting them a respite from, their torments…

St. Augustine, On Faith, Hope, and Love (Enchiridion),Chapter 112

Chapter 12. Christians live as under God’s eye

And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments.

St. Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter 12

 

[onemangang]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. .

What I mean is logic exist. We can recognize that logic exist.

How do we explain existence apart from God?

I am not saying that God created logic, but logic is a reflection of the eternal, the mind of God. We are able to think again of re-cognize these Laws of logic because, they reflect the mind of God, and we are image bearers of Him.

I am merely saying that** as a Christian I can account for the existence of Logic. **I find that the Atheist, can not make such claims.

That by no means, proves the God of the Christian, but without logic being a reflection of the unfolding of divine wisdom, or the Logos, there isn’t a ground for logic.

How does an atheist account for, or explain, the existence of logic itself?

The Laws of logic.

1 Are they observable in nature?
2 Are they agreed upon conventions?
3 Are they Constructs of the mind?
3 Do you appeal to a scientific method to codify logic?

No, its arguing that a square is a square no matter if anyone ever thinks about it or discovers it. Its a purely logical construct. ** God did not create it, and did not define it. It is what it is.**

I never said that God created logic. I said that **God is the grounds of all existence, which would make logic a reflection of His mind, recognized by believer, and non-believer alike, only because we are made in Imageo Deo. **

God cannot make a square circle any set of points that fits the concept of a circle cannot me made to fit the concept of a square, neither of which he, once again, created or defined. How could god have created any of these mathematical constructs? If he did, then the moment they came into existence, they would be true regardless of what he had to say. Which is precisely the reason why they were true before him as well. You can remove time entirely (since you think he has existed forever), it doesn’t matter.

Like I said before, God did not create logic. Logic is the reflection of eternal divine wisdom, the mind of God. We only recognize it, as God bearers, made in His image.