Honestly, Heaven and Hell are old words for your chakra’s . The top one heaven , and the bottom hell . Reaching the top means you’ve come into bliss . Just meditations . So I wonder what the real term or wording for heaven and hell is? There had to be an original name for the two mentioned above. If anyone has knowledge in this please reply. Thanks !
Except I don’t KNOW that, and I actually honestly think it ISN’T TRUE. So your argument falls apart.
Let’s try something different. Please describe the way, including all the thoughts and mental “choices” involved, that you would use to spontaneously choose to think Christianity is not true.
You can know it by studying the logic and philosophy behind it. And then, honestly, what you think doesn’t change the truth. I can think that hot stove isn’t hot all I want, but it still burns. In order to see sin as a hot stove, you’re going to have to dig deep into the theology and logic behind sin. Praying for the grace to understand would help you out immensely, but only if you’re willing to actually give it a try.
A hot stove is easily testable in the observable world. I can’t “test” hell without ending up there. Its existence has to be taken on faith, and because of how unjust it is to me, I don’t have that faith.
And a Muslim could just as easily sit here and tell both of us that “praying for the grace to understand would help us out immensely” in finding their god, and I doubt you would see either of us giving that a try. What makes you think I haven’t studied, and had many conversations about, the logic and philosophy behind it? I don’t find your side convincing, and that is not because of ignorance.
There are no things holding me back though. I am not an atheist because I hate god or I resent him for evil or I want to live however I want to live. I am an atheist because that is what makes the most sense to me. And part of the reason it does make more sense to me is the problem of hell. So per the topic, if you have a way to show that hell is just, present it. Because saying I choose to burn myself (something I wouldn’t do if I knew it was going to burn me) on a stove (that I honestly don’t think exists) does not even begin to attempt to show that hell is just.
Why?
If you held to the Catholic lifestyle and beliefs long enough, you would begin to see a difference, despite what you feel now. The beauty and grace and peace you would feel would be enough to convince you that the loss of those things would indeed be Hell. It takes work, willingness and time. Nobody here can take on the burden of personal proof for you. You must be willing to shoulder the larger share of the work for yourself.
But have you tried what you’ve learned? Are you willing to be proved wrong in the long run?
Your unwillingness to step beyond the boundaries of what you can see with two fleshy orbs filled with water in your skull is what is setting you back, friend. Many people here have demonstrated to you that Hell is just, not a punishment but a choice, but you are unwilling to see it.
Is it possible that for this reason that any might choose an eternal punishment? Surely a small amount of discomfort involved in doing the will of God might prove thousands of times superior to an eternity of anguish?
How might a soul choose not to be in Hell?
Anyone may choose eternal punishment. People who choose to follow God for a time in this life may reject Him in the end. People who experience doubt and disbelief may in the end accept God. We hope those we love and we ourselves make choice to share the eternal life of God, but cannot make future predictions.
One would think so.
Catholics believe the choice is ‘ongoing.’ As I said, there are people who choose to follow God for a time but may reject Him in the end. A lover of God can’t imagine how this could happen, but we know it does. We have opportunities to choose good over evil every minute of the day. We can choose to be rude on the road and show no consideration for other drivers. We can choose to be unkind to someone vulnerable just because we can. We can choose to be fair in our dealings with people or cheat others just because we can. We can tell the truth or choose to lie. Not out of embarrassment or to save our skins which is quite human. I mean lies calculated to cause harm to others. I know ‘evil’ may sound over-dramatic in reference to some of the things I have listed, but we become evil by making a practice of continually rejecting good to the point where there is no return.
Surely not if premeditated.
OKSure, but that was never the issue. To say Mary was immaculately conceived, THAT is the issue and the reason for the doctrine of the IC.
Is this to suggest that God might find gambling with the souls of his creation to be an enjoyable pass-time?
Is this not a sufficiently simple example of “blessings and curses?” Is it not also the same form of example as provided by the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden?
Fair enough, but in the above example the consideration was on what is provided, rather than what is chosen. Is not a benevolent deity who provides Pharaoh with the choice of the death of all the first born required to deliver on this threat? In what instance might a benevolent being comprised solely of good be capable of providing such an alternative?
Let us consider this sin. Typically this is not a sin of evil intent, but one of self-control (such as gluttony). Is its commission truly worthy of having an eternity of torment as a consequence?
Certainly he may, but is it possible for one to truly love a tyrant? If God’s image might be misconstrued as such, is not the obligation on the part of the omnipotent being so maligned to clarify his message? If no clarity is forthcoming, might one not conclude that God must be satisfied with this image?
Is “obey me or I will disinherit you” a common proposition suggested at the onset of a loving relationship–particularly one in which one party might be infinitely more powerful than the other? Is it not suspected that a being of infinite love might have been capable of a greater showing of initial affection?
I suspect many have this difficulty…Have you bugged my house?
What about the previous effort might be considered deficient?kidding aside, disobedience has consequences. If that child is 46 years old, yeah, he’s outta there
you get the drift.
If not benign, what might best describe a being purportedly comprised entirely of love?Surely you’re not thinking God is benign?
If a perfect doctor might be considered one who might be capable of curing every illness, and a perfect psychologist might be one able to cure even the most ardent neurotic, would not a perfect, loving, God be able to cure every sinner?
What if these alternate terms might be claimed to be of God?
Quite so: in seeking truth, one must often set one’s personal inclinations aside.
Might this perhaps be due to water’s cleansing benefits being a perfect metaphor for spiritual cleanness?
This is possible, but does it not then merely simplify to: do what one feels is right? If such is the case, what need has one for any religion or its texts? Would not any guide book on moral principles equally serve the purpose?
If such imagery might have been borrowed from Greek mythology and then subsequently inserted into the mouth of Jesus, what other portions of the gospel might equally have been so lifted?
Surely not an all-powerful good king–would he not merely banish troublemakers to a region without torment?
Similarly I have been told that we will never understand the concept of reincarnation in this life as it is described by the Sikh faith. This is in response to a question of how it might be possible for the Sikh to experience each and every life form given that some number in the millions with very short lives and some merely in the hundreds with very long lives.
Clearly this is the case, but at some point must one not settle on what is perceived to be closest to truth regardless?
In such a case would not every person who claims to have a relationship with their savior necessarily be mistaken? Who might be able to have a relationship with an “it” that manifests as a “he” who purports to be his own “son” while sharing none of mankind’s common emotions?
Is it not more the case that God need not necessarily be manifestly a tyrant, but instead merely not a being comprised of loving concern for mankind?
This is possible. Alternately I have been told by a Catholic priest that all practitioners are in the infancy of their faith until they are able to fully embrace the Charismatic tradition.The reality is finding truth is problematic and fraught with difficulty. The more we mature the more difficult it becomes. I believe we had a discussion about a ‘child’ state in terms of spirituality? Truth is easy for children. In terms of spirituality, some people never move beyond that ‘child’ state. I’m not saying that as a criticism, nor using the term ‘child’ in an insulting way, and it has nothing to do with biological age. I’m saying it in order to illustrate looking at faith from someone else’s perspective. If someone is in a ‘child’ state, that’s who they are and where they are at. So, the search for truth comes easily to them. It doesn’t follow for all of us. Your in the ‘critic’ stage, where you question everything and belief doesn’t come readily. If that’s where your at, that’s where you’re at, and your search will be a difficult one. Accept that, but keep looking.
This was attempted several years ago. So far it has not had any apparent result.
If one might be condemned to an eternity of torment for professing an unbelief in a deity, what might such a sentence possibly reveal of the nature of such a being? Might one immediately assume it was:Yes.
all of them. That’s the point. We wouldn’t know any of this if it weren’t for revelation (scripture) and apostolic Tradition telling us what the consequences are for certain sins. For that matter, heaven and hell, without revelation telling us they are real, would just be no better than one’s imagination or speculation. That’s why I paraphrased St Paul in an earlier post by saying something to the effect, If Jesus isn’t who he says he is, and he is still in the ground over in Jerusalem, then we are to be the most pittied of all, for our faith is nonsense, so eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. [1 Cor 15:12…] I stress, very loosly paraphrased
If one is certain that the punishment meted out to the unbeliever might be considered perfectly just, would they be willing to administer it if so asked?
Thus one might be mistaken in this life, but because the mistake is properly explained to them they are then able to embrace an eternity of torment without argument?
OK
Is what is just in human terms just in godly terms? If not, how might God share a human sense of justice?
Is it not the request of every confidence man to believe without understanding? Why might God choose to behave in a similar fashion?
There are many meanings, and this would be one of them. However, in our spoiled, western world we take water for granted. People in other countries do not. Water is a precious commodity and considered to be life giving, which introduces another spiritual dimension.
‘Good’ and ‘right’ are not the same thing. Therefore, choosing what is good is not the same thing as choosing what feels right in one’s own eyes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think Jesus actually said anything about demons with cloven hooves and horns. He did speak of Gehenna, which was a literal place with a literal fire. Fire is frequently used as a symbol of eternal destruction in scripture. What I was referring to was not the actual words of Jesus but concepts of the physical state of Hell based on an interpretation of Jesus words. Some Christian concepts of Hell are based on Revelation, which John states is a vision given to him by Jesus. However, he also states the Revelation is presented in signs and symbols, so one has to be very cautious of a literal interpretation of Revelation. To illustrate further, Jesus used things like fields, pearls, dragnets, wheat to illustrate the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not literally these things.
It is possible. Another way of looking at it is ancient kingdoms had an understanding of divine truths, and these truths, while interpreted differently, have been believed from the dawn of time. Admittedly this requires a bit more imagination.
However, interestingly the OT authors, who had a closer association with the Egyptians than first century Jews or Christians, don’t ‘borrow’ this concept from the Egyptians. The Messiah being born of a virgin is a NT concept, not an OT one.Many of the parables Jesus told were parables that were already in existence, and he re-adapted them to teach the kingdom of God. An example of that is the parable of the wheat and the weeds. I think another is the Good Samaritan. He used everyday things and situations, such as fishing, cooking as people in that culture could readily relate to his teaching.
Depends what one is discarding - details that aren’t really important, or the principles, morals and values they are intended to teach.
If they insisted in remaining in their own torment of their own making, and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise despite repeated attempts, what should the king do?
Only if what is being proposed is untrue.