Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

Actually the plan was put in place immediately after the fall of A & E. It’s Gen 3:15. I gave that answer many posts ago. God continues testing humanity like He tested A & E.

Kindly consider that while he may have put his plan in place immediately, was it made apparent to mankind in the same direct manner? Or did it not, instead, require several thousands of years to be made manifest?

Isn’t the issue love? When a child stops loving the parent, the child has emotionally seperated themselves from the parent…true? What if that condition doesn’t change for the child? Does the parent want the child to be seperated? No. Maybe they’ve tried and tried with the child, to change the situation but to no avail. The child desires seperation to continue.

And so the parent exacerbates the situation by withdrawing all support and contact, all unconditional love, so that the child is proven correct in its suspicions that the love of the parent was superficial and conditional? Is this not why many children rebel in the first instance–as a means of testing the strength of the love of the parent?

You asked “Why did not the same parent “eternalize” the child’s decision when the child still loved him/her?”

Can you force someone to love you when they don’t want to? What if they loved you once but no more? Can you force them to love you again? What if they don’t want anything to do with you? Do you pretend nothing is wrong when clearly there is something severely wrong?

People will to freely love or not to love. That’s by God’s design. “Remain” is a word used many times by Jesus. i.e. “remain in my love”, “remain in me” etc. It requires an act of our will and requires our perseverence to remain. He desires us to remain in love with Him, but the radical possibility is, one can choose not to remain in love, and persevere instead to remain seperated.

To clarify: if Hell is merely the “eternalization” of one’s lack of love for God from the moment of death, why is God not hastily “eternalizing” the current love that those same individuals might still have before losing their love for God later in life? If God is willing to eternalize a negative, why is he not willing to eternalize a positive–something which might apparently have little to do with coercion or use of force to maintain?

Is it not clear to consider that if one may lose their love for God at a given moment in time, one might equally be able to gain a love for God at a later moment? If so, why is God eternalizing any specific sentiment at a given moment in time? What purpose might this serve?

I think, while you can still fog a mirror, take advantage of the time you have to make sure you seek God earnestly without agenda. By agenda, I mean learn about God from what He has revealed about Himself through scripture, Tradition, and the Church teaching, not strawman arguments. Life is short

the question remains, how do you define “natural thawing”. What is He to do that He hasn’t done and isn’t doing already?

Exist?

Less facetiously:

1. Correct extraneous interpretations of his words that run wild throughout the Earth, confusing his message.
2. Show up to large prayer gatherings as a sign of good faith.
3. Tangibly improve neighborhoods in which his true church might reside.
4. Respond sensibly to prayer.
5. Honor not only the free will of the evil-doer, but also the free will of those striving for good.
6. Protect his priests and religious tenfold from evil in any form, especially their own temptations.
7. Protect children from egregious harm.
8. Walk the streets of the inner city at night to protect the innocent.
9. Make it impossible to carry out a war in his name.
10. Abolish Hell so that choosing to follow him would truly be perceived as a choice, and not a coercive threat.
11. Make the prayers of the people more potent than the strength of the powerful.
12. Abolish fetal alcohol and psychopathic tendencies with the proper administration of Holy Water.
13. Provide a reasonable means of combating addictions.
14. Shine a star over Bethlehem every Christmas.
15. Convert Satan rather than shackling him in a fiery pit for eternity.
16. Forgive his enemies by allowing the angels in Hell a second chance at redemption.
17. Not allow any tragedies to occur on Sunday, Easter, or Christmas.
18. Tame the weather when enough people pray.
19. Provide a prayerful means of curing mental illness.
20. Whisper “I love you” to each and every one as they drift off to sleep…

Any of the above would suffice.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Do you have children?

Indeed. In abundance. Do you?

There’s a difference between honest questioning and a challange from unbelief.

for example
· Mary asked the Angel Gabriel “how can this be, I know no man”. She was asking a valid question because she was a virgin and planned to remain a virgin, so how could she then have a child?
· Zechariah otoh, husband of Elizabeth, was told by the Angel Gabriel they would have a son, and Zechariah didn’t believe Gabriel so he was struck dumb as a result until his son was born

Same Angel, different results to the questioning…right?

Is it not strange that Zechariah’s doubt was not allowed? Why is doubt such an evil attribute that it might merit punishment?

What star boxer, confident in his abilities, might be so astounded by a child’s doubting of his strength that he might strike her senseless in order to provide her a proof?

Further, given that Mary was facing an Angel in person, was not her doubt appropriately addressed? If Mary might later on come to speak of her experience with a neighbor, is this one expected to believe without the same evidence as was afforded Mary? If so, why? If not, why might doubting similar stories passed down from unproved sources be so blameworthy as to merit Hell?

Should not everyone be potentially worthy of the same respect as Mary and be given a face to face encounter?

I’m going to suggest a book for you.
“Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft. If you’re interested it can be purchased online. Lots of questions answered.

I will seek it out. Thank you.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

could you be more specific?

I apologize. To clarify:

If in reading the Bible one discovers a passage in which God rains fire down upon a household (or has them otherwise consumed by fire or swallowed by the earth) because of the actions of the senior male of the family, and one considers that such an act bespeaks less of a loving god and more of a petty tyrant, how might one be crafting an idol of same by stating:

"If one’s master does not appear good, is one obligated to follow his dictates? Does morality not demand rebellion?

There seems little contentment to be found if one willingly follows a master who appears cruel."

Maybe you’re avoiding, something we’re all born with. A disposition to believe in God and wanting to know God. He has already preprogrammed us for that draw. Just look at the numbers in the world’s population who believe in God. To go against this, one has to be reprogrammed by others to take the opposing view. Eitherway, belief or non belief, is an act of the will. Just like remaining in belief or unbelief, is an act of the will.

It is possible. Equally, is it not possible that in learning of God’s past exploits one might find it difficult to conceive of such a being allowing such tales to stand while at the same time claiming not only to be good, but to be goodness itself? If one is doubtful of the goodness of God, is it not understandable to doubt his very existence as well? Further, once one is capable of doubting the existence of God, is it not possible to remain in such a state so long as the doubts remain in spite of any inner yearning or desire for a contrary view?

Is it very difficult to understand why one might at once yearn for the existence of a god of love as a child might yearn for the existence of a magical Santa, while at the same instant grieve the reality that such is not likely to be?

 

[steve_b]

Kindly consider that while he may have put his plan in place immediately, was it made apparent to mankind in the same direct manner? Or did it not, instead, require several thousands of years to be made manifest?

And so the parent exacerbates the situation by withdrawing all support and contact, all unconditional love, so that the child is proven correct in its suspicions that the love of the parent was superficial and conditional? Is this not why many children rebel in the first instance–as a means of testing the strength of the love of the parent?

To clarify: if Hell is merely the “eternalization” of one’s lack of love for God from the moment of death, why is God not hastily “eternalizing” the current love that those same individuals might still have before losing their love for God later in life? If God is willing to eternalize a negative, why is he not willing to eternalize a positive–something which might apparently have little to do with coercion or use of force to maintain?

Is it not clear to consider that if one may lose their love for God at a given moment in time, one might equally be able to gain a love for God at a later moment? If so, why is God eternalizing any specific sentiment at a given moment in time? What purpose might this serve?

Exist?

Less facetiously:

1. Correct extraneous interpretations of his words that run wild throughout the Earth, confusing his message.
2. Show up to large prayer gatherings as a sign of good faith.
3. Tangibly improve neighborhoods in which his true church might reside.
4. Respond sensibly to prayer.
5. Honor not only the free will of the evil-doer, but also the free will of those striving for good.
6. Protect his priests and religious tenfold from evil in any form, especially their own temptations.
7. Protect children from egregious harm.
8. Walk the streets of the inner city at night to protect the innocent.
9. Make it impossible to carry out a war in his name.
10. Abolish Hell so that choosing to follow him would truly be perceived as a choice, and not a coercive threat.
11. Make the prayers of the people more potent than the strength of the powerful.
12. Abolish fetal alcohol and psychopathic tendencies with the proper administration of Holy Water.
13. Provide a reasonable means of combating addictions.
14. Shine a star over Bethlehem every Christmas.
15. Convert Satan rather than shackling him in a fiery pit for eternity.
16. Forgive his enemies by allowing the angels in Hell a second chance at redemption.
17. Not allow any tragedies to occur on Sunday, Easter, or Christmas.
18. Tame the weather when enough people pray.
19. Provide a prayerful means of curing mental illness.
20. Whisper “I love you” to each and every one as they drift off to sleep…

Any of the above would suffice.

If one insists that God doesn’t exist, and no matter the materials presented to counter that belief, one’s mind won’t change, then all that’s left is wait and see.

 

[minkymurph]

Is it very difficult to understand why one might at once yearn for the existence of a god of love as a child might yearn for the existence of a magical Santa, while at the same instant grieve the reality that such is not likely to be?

I argue a ‘magical’ Santa does exist - Saint Nicholas - Patron Saint of Children.

‘Babushka’ is also tied in with the Nativity story.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It’s a good question - how would one be ‘tormented’ if no one they despise was around to annoy them?

‘Torment’ can be defined in many ways. What is ‘torment’ to one person may not be to another. We don’t actually know what physical form the ‘torment’ of Hell takes. Therefore the answer I would give us is theoretical.

As I said previously, we catch glimpses of Heaven and Hell in this life. There are those who choose to live life in the absence of love, and as such are getting a glimpse of what an eternity in the absence of love would be like. That is the ‘torment.’

To illustrate, those who regularly make the conscious decision to choose ‘good’ over ‘evil’ are often very discontented, resentful people, who, for this reason, are never at peace with either themselves or others. They choose to surround themselves with like-minded people yet in fact despise them, as they reject notions of genuine friendship. They don’t form alliances with others because they particularly enjoy their company or have a genuine fondness for them. Such people don’t make true friends as their relationships are often merely contractual - formed on the basis of what others can do for them to their benefit, and in some cases the ‘contract’ is intended as one way traffic - in that they are the ‘taker’ in the relationship but never ‘give.’

Or in the instance of a child who has been taken from an abusive household and then transferred to multiple foster homes before finally being adopted by complete strangers. At this point, affected by attachment syndrome, among other issues, is it not often the case that such a child might grow to be an adult incapable of maintaining normal interactions? Would it be surprising that such a one might then choose him/her self over others in future relationships? Would one be correct in categorizing such a one as choosing evil over good if one was not aware of the child’s background?

In this life, such people are not completely shut off from love from God or others. It is still open to them. They are completely shut off from love when the soul is ‘drained’ of all ‘good’ as a consequence of persistently rejecting it. The soul then becomes completely corrupted. One could ask why God does not simply restore the soul to it’s original state. Catholics believe he does through baptism and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, once death occurs a soul that is completely corrupted remains in that state, as the soul has physically left this world and entered another state. One could question why God does simply restore the soul then? It would require interference with free will, in that the soul did not want to be restored. I also have a theory it would mean not restoring it but creating it over again. In which case it would not be the same soul but a replica, and God doesn’t ‘re-make’ the immortal soul over again because the person it was bestowed on chose to corrupt it to the extent they did.

Of course, that doesn’t explain why God would give someone the free will to totally corrupt their soul in the first place, and that my friend is something I cannot answer. Better people than me have tried to.

Nor might it explain the point of God containing all of the souls that are so emptied in a place where none of them might wish to be for all eternity, but it is still interesting to consider.

The only thing I could come up with is to imagine what life and the world we live in would be like if God used his power against our will to this extent.

Surely it might be preferable to an eternity of torment? To clarify, God need not even go so far as to override free will. Would it not suffice simply for him to better support those one the correct path?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God will take into account the circumstances with which they lived. Many things relating to God and His law are intrinsic to us, for example morality. If a man shows up on judgment day and has committed fifteen murders, and his only defense is that “well there wasn’t enough evidence for an objective morality, so how can I be judged for these crimes?” this will not suffice, because killing those people would be contrary to his own conscience, which he should have been listening to in the first place. In the same way, there are many things about God that we can know simply through the world around us, especially ourselves (as humans, having intellect, will, a capacity for compassion, etc). If a man makes no effort to try to know God, or to search for Him, despite the inner longings of his heart, then how can he claim innocent ignorance? “There is not enough evidence” is kind of a lame excuse.

What if the 15 murdered were homosexual? Could not the one then point to the Bible as the source of his instructions for the killing?

 

[minkymurph]

Or in the instance of a child who has been taken from an abusive household and then transferred to multiple foster homes before finally being adopted by complete strangers. At this point, affected by attachment syndrome, among other issues, is it not often the case that such a child might grow to be an adult incapable of maintaining normal interactions? Would it be surprising that such a one might then choose him/her self over others in future relationships? Would one be correct in categorizing such a one as choosing evil over good if one was not aware of the child’s background?

We could outline any number of ‘what if’ and ‘but for’ scenario’s, and attempt to guess whether that person would go to Hell or not. We don’t what individual go the Hell and what one’s don’t. We don’t know how God would judge and individual because judgement is not our business.

Nor might it explain the point of God containing all of the souls that are so emptied in a place where none of them might wish to be for all eternity, but it is still interesting to consider.

That’s something I don’t fully understand, and don’t have any theories on it at the moment.

Surely it might be preferable to an eternity of torment? To clarify, God need not even go so far as to override free will. Would it not suffice simply for him to better support those one the correct path?

I would argue those on the correct path don’t need a much help as those who are not, and tend to have lower expectations of God, in terms of what he should do for them.

Perhaps it seems preferable to you, and many others. However, we cannot know what another, particularly one who rejects God, would find preferable. We cannot assume to know what another would think and feel in a certain situation, and we cannot assume it would be the same as we would think or feel.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The psychopath is a good question. This aspect of psychology/criminology is hotly contested and disputed. As I mentioned, there is the nature/nurture argument. Then there is the ‘warrior gene’ argument. As far as restoration of the soul of a psychopath is concerned, it’s a question I couldn’t answer, and wouldn’t attempt to. A psychopath may be unable to feel normal emotions. However, does this mean the psychopath is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and is not responsible for their actions? They can, but to what extent are they culpable for their actions? I can’t answer that because I don’t know.

There is an argument in relation to the ‘warrior’ gene in terms of how it exhibits it’s effects. The argument is the family in which the psychopath is raised is a significant factor in how it exhibits it’s effects. The theory is those who carry the ‘warrior’ gene and have a stable family background, particularly a good relationship with their father, may be prone to violence but don’t become violent or serial killers. Men in particular, who carry this gene, bearing in mind it’s all very much theory at the moment, who have an unstable family and a violent father are more likely to become killers. In terms of judgement, I have no idea to what extent God would hold the latter type culpable. All I would say is God knows all things and all things are taken into account. If someone is incapable of repentance, God would not only know that but know why. God would also know to what extent they could distinguish the morality of their actions, and to what extent they are not able to do so.

Again I would have to say you’re asking a question I could only give a theoretical answer to. What I would say is God does not choose to heal one ailment but not another. No religion teaches God cures the psychopath but not one with with an emotional or spiritual ‘ailment.’ We don’t know the most heinous will avoid Hell, and we don’t know they won’t. We don’t know God only makes allowances for some conditions and not others. In relation to the thread, I would also say justice is non-arbitrary.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Didn’t He?

I don’t think being in a covenant with God requires possession of a particular body part that has been subjected to a surgical procedure - not as far as the book of Acts is concerned. However, I openly admit I don’t really understand the religious significance of circumcision.

I find human nature is fascinating. In terms of judgement concerning the eternal destiny of any individual or group of people, you’re asking me to make a call I can’t make. However, a just God takes all things into account and in addition, God knows what we are inside, not just outside. God also knows how external factors affect us, and to what extent we are responsible for ourselves.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If one insists that God doesn’t exist, and no matter the materials presented to counter that belief, one’s mind won’t change, then all that’s left is wait and see.

It is agreed that if one remains stubbornly committed to any direction of thought it might be possible to so remain as long as extraordinary means are not used to cause a change.

However, since no such stubborn effort of will is being consciously made to remain ignorant to the possibility of a god existing, it would be most appreciated if you might properly respond to the previous post.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I argue a ‘magical’ Santa does exist - Saint Nicholas - Patron Saint of Children.

Perhaps a ‘historic’ Santa, but surely not a magical one?

‘Babushka’ is also tied in with the Nativity story.

Now this I did not know.

 

[CompSciGuy]

What if the 15 murdered were homosexual? Could not the one then point to the Bible as the source of his instructions for the killing?

No.

 

[steve_b]

It is agreed that if one remains stubbornly committed to any direction of thought it might be possible to so remain as long as extraordinary means are not used to cause a change.

However, since no such stubborn effort of will is being consciously made to remain ignorant to the possibility of a god existing, it would be most appreciated if you might properly respond to the previous post.

I’ve said this subject can’t be approached without supernatural faith, which is a grace/gift from God. If one wants it, they need to ask God for it. The problem is, when a person doesn’t acknowledge God even exists, how can they ask for faith? It’s a subject and a conversation that only goes in circles. Ultimately, an endless circular argument that doesn’t progress, can’t be edifying for either person…true? I came a bit late into the discussion, but I think I have some 40+ posts. It’s not that I haven’t tried

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps a ‘historic’ Santa, but surely not a magical one?

No. As I said, stories become embellished and exaggerated over time, but contain an element of truth.

One introduces the ‘magic’ element when one is dealing with children. Children like ‘magic,’ they can relate to it, and it is used to develop their understanding.

When one attempts to pass on values, morals, beliefs, or indeed fact to children, one passes them on in a way the child or children can relate to and understand.

Many things are tied in with Nativity story in the West. In other cultures, you will find a similar vein running through customs - such as the Festival of Lights in India.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No.

Leviticus 20:13

Today’s New International Version (TNIV)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I’ve said this subject can’t be approached without supernatural faith, which is a grace/gift from God. If one wants it, they need to ask God for it. The problem is, when a person doesn’t acknowledge God even exists, how can they ask for faith? It’s a subject and a conversation that only goes in circles.

Is this to suggest that God is unable to grant a non-believer grace sufficient even to simply begin the process of believing? If so, how might a non-believer ever be converted? Would this not necessarily make the process of spreading the gospel message largely impossible?

Ultimately, an endless circular argument that doesn’t progress, can’t be edifying for either person…true? I came a bit late into the discussion, but I think I have some 40+ posts. It’s not that I haven’t tried

How many posts might one expect to be required in order for another to be sufficiently convinced to change his/her world view?

Might not an outside observer more likely conclude that the one no longer willing to discuss the topic at hand has merely found the remaining questions too difficult to properly address?

If so, take heart that a similar difficulty confronts this poster with regards to the majority of atheistic arguments. The only remaining dilemma, the one that may cause one to pause, is that atheism does not seemingly fully resolve the issue of morality: an atheist may claim “do no harm” is all that is required for a morally upright atheistic society to flourish, but experience seemingly suggests that individuals allowed to interpret rules subjectively have often found a means of absolving themselves from accountability.

For example, an atheistic office worker might convince himself that the corporation for which he works is under-paying him and so the ream of paper he brings home is just compensation for the slight, but a Christian worker seemingly has more than himself to satisfy and so will look to Heaven before committing the theft.

Alternately, is it not possible for a Christian worker to consider their employer immoral and destined for Hell so depriving him of an extra stapler might be akin to short-changing the devil?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No. As I said, stories become embellished and exaggerated over time, but contain an element of truth.

One introduces the ‘magic’ element when one is dealing with children. Children like ‘magic,’ they can relate to it, and it is used to develop their understanding.

When one attempts to pass on values, morals, beliefs, or indeed fact to children, one passes them on in a way the child or children can relate to and understand.

Many things are tied in with Nativity story in the West. In other cultures, you will find a similar vein running through customs - such as the Festival of Lights in India.

OK

 

[steve_b]

Is this to suggest that God is unable to grant a non-believer grace sufficient even to simply begin the process of believing? If so, how might a non-believer ever be converted? Would this not necessarily make the process of spreading the gospel message largely impossible?

What I’ve said in the past is, God stacked the deck in His favor for our benefit. That is, He preprogramed us to be disposed to Him. It’s in our nature to want to know Him. That’s how He made us. I’ve quoted the following passage before. “He desires us all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” [1 Tim 2:4] iow, He gives everyone the grace necessary for that to happen. But He won’t force us. All one needs is a nudge/pull to start the process. Once the process starts, then that person in order to believe what they are being told, (all presuming that the information is true fully backed up), then desires faith and asks for it. If one asks, and is serious about it, then of course God gives the necessary grace. At that point, one needs to put the work into learning.
J:

How many posts might one expect to be required in order for another to be sufficiently convinced to change his/her world view?

Depends.
J:

Might not an outside observer more likely conclude that the one no longer willing to discuss the topic at hand has merely found the remaining questions too difficult to properly address?

Can one also conclude that the one who is questioning, really isn’t interested at this time? Maybe another time later in that persons life, they would be more amenable to the subject?
J:

If so, take heart that a similar difficulty confronts this poster with regards to the majority of atheistic arguments. The only remaining dilemma, the one that may cause one to pause, is that atheism does not seemingly fully resolve the issue of morality: an atheist may claim “do no harm” is all that is required for a morally upright atheistic society to flourish, but experience seemingly suggests that individuals allowed to interpret rules subjectively have often found a means of absolving themselves from accountability.

Above all the secular concerns, God calls us to a highrer accountability. No subjectivity, but absolutes that one can’t absolve themselves from.
J:

For example, an atheistic office worker might convince himself that the corporation for which he works is under-paying him and so the ream of paper he brings home is just compensation for the slight, but a Christian worker seemingly has more than himself to satisfy and so will look to Heaven before committing the theft.

Alternately, is it not possible for a Christian worker to consider their employer immoral and destined for Hell so depriving him of an extra stapler might be akin to short-changing the devil?

Is it possible the atheist might think, since there is no God and no heaven or hell, hey what the heck, try and get away with what they can while they can still fog a mirror. Afterall, The only possible consequences to actions are here in this life, they end here and go no further. Believe it or not, that notion requires a certain amount of faith as well, because the atheist really can’t be sure there is nothing after this life. They hope there isn’t but they can’t be sure. So they already have the beginning of faith and hope, just not rightly ordered.

 

[Lochias]

Ha! This is a very good point to ponder, very good point indeed.

I would also add that any Catholic who understands and live his or her faith (I can’t speak knowledgeably for other Christian denoms) would A. Realize that they will never have the ability to accurately know if a person is going to hell or not, and B. Realize that stealing a stapler to “fight the devil” is not only a ludicrous idea in and of itself, but also a classic case of “two wrongs don’t make a right”.