Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

This seems strange to consider: many there are, it would appear, who are clearly not predisposed to God. Further, are there not entire tribes who have never even contemplated God?

How might it be possible to explain the Hindu in light of such pre-programmed disposition?

Depends.

On what?

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?

It is possible, but is this for those being questioned to determine? Is it not equally possible that the entire purpose of the discussion could be for the benefit of an unknown reader? Where might one find the faith that God’s purpose is being fulfilled through one’s actions if one might make such routine assumptions?

Is it not often said that so long as there exists a willingness to question, there exists a potential for change?

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

…based upon one’s interpretation of scripture, naturally.

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.

It is quite possible. Indeed, in some situations, it is even probable.

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.

This is a fair point to consider, although one might suggest that it is unlikely that the atheist “hopes” against an afterlife: many atheists fear the finality of death particularly because it appears to them as completely final.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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”.

It has been the experience of this poster, after employing a group of devout Christians, that their work ethic would vary according to the known denomination of the client for whom they were expected to complete a task: members of their church would receive special treatment and attention to detail whereas members of a denomination they considered Hell-bound would be allotted an overall lower level of effort.

Kindly consider, if it were your duty to perform a task for a neighbor, might your performance potentially change depending on whether the individual might also attend your church as opposed to being a professed militant atheist?

 

[steve_b]

This seems strange to consider:* many there are, it would appear, who are clearly not predisposed to God*. Further, are there not entire tribes who have never even contemplated God?

That is their doing not God’s. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. But He doesn’t force anyone.
J:

How might it be possible to explain the Hindu in light of such pre-programmed disposition?

Actually they are very disposed to theological discussion, and they already believe in a higher being.
J:

It is possible, but is this for those being questioned to determine? Is it not equally possible that the entire purpose of the discussion could be for the benefit of an unknown reader? Where might one find the faith that God’s purpose is being fulfilled through one’s actions if one might make such routine assumptions?

Everybody is called, few are chosen.
J:

Is it not often said that so long as there exists a willingness to question, there exists a potential for change?

Sure
J:

…based upon one’s interpretation of scripture, naturally.

Scripture was never meant to be interpreted outside the Church that gave us the scriptures. Personal interpretation came in with the protestant revolt. And we can see how that worked. Serial division on steroids
J:

one might suggest that it is unlikely that the atheist “hopes” against an afterlife: many atheists fear the finality of death particularly because it appears to them as completely final.

I’d be interested if there was ever a poll or survey that kept track of at the time, all the foxhole conversions of atheists.

 

[thenobes]

It has been the experience of this poster, after employing a group of devout Christians, that their work ethic would vary according to the known denomination of the client for whom they were expected to complete a task: members of their church would receive special treatment and attention to detail whereas members of a denomination they considered Hell-bound would be allotted an overall lower level of effort.

Kindly consider, if it were your duty to perform a task for a neighbor, might your performance potentially change depending on whether the individual might also attend your church as opposed to being a professed militant atheist?

Jel,

Realizing that one should do so would not enable one to do so in every instance. However, if the behavior is brought to one’s attention, one should recognize his behavior as a sin, confess his sin, and attempt to rectify his conduct. That is, assuming the life of Christ is active within him.

peace
steve

 

[Jelrak_TB]

That is their doing not God’s. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. But He doesn’t force anyone.

What of the tribes who do not know any god, let alone, God?

Actually they are very disposed to theological discussion, and they already believe in a higher being.

…10 million higher beings, apparently.

Everybody is called, few are chosen.

Why might few be chosen if the choice is purportedly up to the individual?

Sure

Scripture was never meant to be interpreted outside the Church that gave us the scriptures.

Where might such a concept be found in scripture? Is it to be conceived that God might speak to mankind only through an institution? If so, why did Jesus spend so much time attempting to convert the populace directly? Why not merely take his place among the high priests of the temple?

Personal interpretation came in with the protestant revolt. And we can see how that worked. Serial division on steroids

Further, is this not the same church that forbade the reading of the Bible in one’s native tongue? Has not their guidance been found faulty on more than one occasion?

I’d be interested if there was ever a poll or survey that kept track of at the time, all the foxhole conversions of atheists.

It would certainly be interesting to discover. For pragmatic reasons, one might imagine several, but to which god might they ultimately appeal at such a time?

 

[minkymurph]

Everybody is called, few are chosen.

Steve, if you don’t mind, I have a bit of difficulty with you’re line of reasoning here.

‘Everybody called but few being chosen’ sounds a bit too close to Calvinism for me. I’m quite sure you don’t mean it like that. Can you expand?

 

[CarolVP]

“Further, is this not the same church that forbade the reading of the Bible in one’s native tongue? Has not their guidance been found faulty on more than one occasion?”

The first statement mis-represents what actually happened. (The second statement needs further clarification, and specific charges of how the Church has been “found faulty”.)

Imagine devising an incredibly complicated machine, which relies on very specific elements, and which also relies on very specific modes of operation. If you were to allow any other person to get hold of the instructions for building and operation of this machine, and/or to translate them into other languages, there would be chances for minor, or not so minor, errors in translation. These errors would cause the machine to operate incorrectly.

It would be in the interests of all, therefore, for you to safeguard the **correct **instructions for building and operating the machine. It would also be in the interests of all concerned to refuse to allow the translation of the instructions into another language, unless you are able to oversee and safeguard the instructions.

This was how the Catholic Church saw its role in the safeguarding of the Scriptures. The Catholic Church gave the world the Scriptures. The Catholic Church meticulously translated the originals, so as to safeguard their accuracy. The Catholic Church made certain that all copies were as accurate as possible, for centuries. The Church wanted God’s Word to be intact and accurate. Thus, rules were made so that only accurate translations were used by those who could read (very few for many centuries). The translations had to be in languages which could be understand properly (Latin and Greek), and had to be approved translations, so as to eliminate as much error as possible.

This was the Church’s job. This was the Church’s responsibility. If I forbid my child to run on the road, it is not because I want to limit his freedom to discover the outside world, but to safeguard his existence. I have a duty to safeguard my children from things which may do them physical harm. The Catholic Church has a duty to safeguard Catholics from teachings which may do them moral harm. This is true now, and it was true in the past.

 

[CarolVP]

“Why might few be chosen if the choice is purportedly up to the individual?”

Jesus told a parable where many were invited to a feast. One guest arrived without a ‘wedding garment’, and was evicted. The parable was teaching truths about entering Heaven, and infers that: 1. A certain number are invited [in fact, it is all men, since Jesus died to save all]; 2. A certain number will attend; 3. One must conform to some sort of standard in order to be allowed to enter and remain.

Therefore, the invitation is open to all, and many will accept it. Others will want to attend, but will not fit themselves. Ergo, it is their own choice to be ‘unacceptably’ arrayed.

 

[Lochias]

“Why might few be chosen if the choice is purportedly up to the individual?”

Jesus told a parable where many were invited to a feast. One guest arrived without a ‘wedding garment’, and was evicted. The parable was teaching truths about entering Heaven, and infers that: 1. A certain number are invited [in fact, it is all men, since Jesus died to save all]; 2. A certain number will attend; 3. One must conform to some sort of standard in order to be allowed to enter and remain.

 

[paul_c]

Jelrak,
I think the basic problem you are having is one of point of view. You are clearly grounded in the secular, so your values are secular. What you see as important is not what God sees as important.

What God values is love, which is defined as doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return. Doing God’s will means doing things for others. Those that go to heaven will be those that are selfless and humble and when they get there, they will encounter a world where everyone is looking out for everyone else’s well being.

Contrast this to the secular view, where what everyone values is their own comfort and power. When these people die, the will also find themselves condemned to a world of like minded people. They will create their own suffering, as each person tries to take advantage of the other, just as they did on earth. They will not have the advantage of having selfless people to take care of them, so they will ultimately descend into anarchy and despair. This suffering is of their own doing, not God’s.

As for suffering itself, this is seen differently by the God fearing and the secularist. Those that understand God’s plan, recognize that life is the great test to see which world you ultimately want. Your heaven or hell begins on earth. You see, human suffering is a path to love. Those that suffer open themselves up to love and provide an opportunity for others to love them. Someone who never suffers, never experiences love (again, someone doing something for them without return) because they are in need of nothing. In life, though, everyone suffers and everyone has access to those who are suffering and need their love. Secularists can’t see this though because they aren’t tuned into love. All they see is the discomfort.

 

[CarolVP]

Jelrak,
I think the basic problem you are having is one of point of view. You are clearly grounded in the secular, so your values are secular. What you see as important is not what God sees as important.

What God values is love, which is defined as doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return. Doing God’s will means doing things for others. Those that go to heaven will be those that are selfless and humble and when they get there,** they will encounter a world where everyone is looking out for everyone else’s well being.**

Contrast this to the secular view, where what everyone values is their own comfort and power. When these people die, the will also find themselves condemned to a world of like minded people. **They will create their own suffering, as each person tries to take advantage of the other, just as they did on earth. ** They will not have the advantage of having selfless people to take care of them, so they will ultimately descend into anarchy and despair. This suffering is of their own doing, not God’s.

Some good points made, Paul, especially about the essential differences between the secular and religious world-views.

However, I find your idea of what actually happens in heaven (and hell) quite strange. Those in Heaven will be united with God, and see Him as He is, face to face. The idea of people in Heaven ‘taking care of each other’ is weird. Heaven has no time or space. Heaven has no need for anyone to care for anyone else, because all will be in a state of blissful happiness in the presence of God. The concept of “caring for each other” implies “need”, and “need” implies some sort of “lack of something”. People in heaven lack nothing. They have God. There will be no need to care for anybody, because all will be immersed in the perfect Love that is God. Total and perfect Love will be their ‘state of being’, so to speak.

 

[paul_c]

Some good points made, Paul, especially about the essential differences between the secular and religious world-views.

However, I find your idea of what actually happens in heaven (and hell) quite strange. Those in Heaven will be united with God, and see Him as He is, face to face. The idea of people in Heaven ‘taking care of each other’ is weird. Heaven has no time or space. Heaven has no need for anyone to care for anyone else, because all will be in a state of blissful happiness in the presence of God. The concept of “caring for each other” implies “need”, and “need” implies some sort of “lack of something”. People in heaven lack nothing. They have God. There will be no need to care for anybody, because all will be immersed in the perfect Love that is God. Total and perfect Love will be their ‘state of being’, so to speak.

Frankly, I struggle with the concepts of timelessness and the essence of heaven and hell. I would agree with you that a major difference between heaven and hell is the beatific vision. But what does it mean to be in the state of perfect love? Is it true that there are no needs in heaven, or is that no needs are left unmet? I have been taught that love is an action: if so, doesn’t it make sense that in heaven everyone acts for the good of all. I’d be interested in how you understand love if different from this.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, if you don’t mind, I have a bit of difficulty with you’re line of reasoning here.

‘Everybody called but few being chosen’ sounds a bit too close to Calvinism for me. I’m quite sure you don’t mean it like that. Can you expand?

I sure want to clear up the difficulty

the actual quote is "Many are called but few are chosen" [Mt 22:14] I changed / paraphrased “many” to “everybody” .

Where does Calvinism come into that?

 

[minkymurph]

I sure want to clear up the difficulty

the actual quote is "Many are called but few are chosen" [Mt 22:14] I changed / paraphrased “many” to “everybody” .

Where does Calvinism come into that?

Calvinists use this scripture to support pre-destination, in that only a minority (the elect) are ‘chosen’ - for heaven - and the majority of the human race will go to hell.

It’s just the fact that this scripture is used as ‘proof’ only a small number, relatively speaking, will go to heaven. I’m sure that’s not what you mean, it’s just seemed like a step in that direction.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Jel,

Realizing that one should do so would not enable one to do so in every instance. However, if the behavior is brought to one’s attention, one should recognize his behavior as a sin, confess his sin, and attempt to rectify his conduct. That is, assuming the life of Christ is active within him.

peace
steve

Fair enough, but would this not also potentially be the similar defense offered by the atheist office supply thief? “If the behavior is brought to one’s attention, one should recognize [it] as [wrong]… and attempt to rectify [it]”?

To clarify, would it not appear that morality is merely the recognition of one’s wrong-doing brought about by the insistence of others and their refusal to tolerate same?

 

[paul_c]

Fair enough, but would this not also potentially be the similar defense offered by the atheist office supply thief? “If the behavior is brought to one’s attention, one should recognize [it] as [wrong]… and attempt to rectify [it]”?

To clarify, would it not appear that morality is merely the recognition of one’s wrong-doing brought about by the insistence of others and their refusal to tolerate same?

There is a huge difference in what you are saying. The office thief is deterred from stealing because of the threat of some penalty. The Christian is deterred from sinning, not because of the the threat of penalty, but because he desires what is best for others and realizes that sin hurts them and he wants to avoid this… In other words, the thief acts out of self interest, while the Christian acts out of love. This is the difference between those that enter hell and those that enter heaven…

 

[steve_b]

Calvinists use this scripture to support pre-destination, in that only a minority (the elect) are ‘chosen’ - for heaven - and the majority of the human race will go to hell.

It’s just the fact that this scripture is used as ‘proof’ only a small number, relatively speaking, will go to heaven. I’m sure that’s not what you mean, it’s just seemed like a step in that direction.

We can’t worry about how Calvinists misread certain scriptures to proof text some position they have that is condemned by the Church. Since God *“desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” [1 Tim 2:4] *, then we know God desires no one to go to hell, nor does he predestine anyone to hell (double predestination), a calvinistic position which the Church condemns. God desires everyone to be with Him but He forces no one against their will.

The fact He knows in advance who will refuse Him, and who will choose Him, doesn’t mean He forced those positions against a person’s will. We have free will which is truly free by design… The fact few are chosen, should give everyone pause about their choices

 

[Jelrak_TB]

“Further, is this not the same church that forbade the reading of the Bible in one’s native tongue? Has not their guidance been found faulty on more than one occasion?”

 

[Jelrak_TB]

“Why might few be chosen if the choice is purportedly up to the individual?”

Jesus told a parable where many were invited to a feast. One guest arrived without a ‘wedding garment’, and was evicted. The parable was teaching truths about entering Heaven, and infers that: 1. A certain number are invited [in fact, it is all men, since Jesus died to save all]; 2. A certain number will attend; 3. One must conform to some sort of standard in order to be allowed to enter and remain.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Spot-on. I can invite all the people I want to my house, but I’m not going to let the ill-behaved inside. They chose that fate for themselves by their own bad behavior.

Except that your invitations were cryptic and posted only in certain establishments even though the party was purportedly open to all. Further, competing invitations were equally inviting others to your home with starkly different requirements for entry and directions on how to arrive.

Since you did not take a moment to clarify which were the false and which the accurate announcements, it gradually became accepted that all–or none–of them might be legitimate.