Explain the justice of hell.

[onemangang]

Here is a quick seven minute video on Hell by Father Barron. Maybe this might give some insight, to some of the questions posed. youtu.be/x8zhnooySk4

I think that this thread is getting a bit heavy for some, and I am no theologian, or philosopher. I simply believe God has revealed Himself to man.

Psalm 14:1 > The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The words “There is”, is an addition or inference to what the actual Hebrew language says. In the Original King James bible the words *There Is * is in italics.

The reading of the text originally would look more like this,
Psalm 14:1 > The fool hath said in his heart,** no God**. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

When you go to a restaurant, the waiter brings out cake, many take a slice, while others say, no cake. To say **there is no cake **would be illogical, the cake is present.

So is God, nobody says "there is no God" Everyone who denies Him, says no God. It is a rejection. It is saying No to truth, beauty, and Love, hell will just be a rejection of Truth beauty and Love, only there will be no place to go.I really think that some Eastern Orthodox perspective on Hell would be beneficial to the discussion. There concept of hell, is a bit different from the Catholic view to some degree.

God calls all men towards Himself, through repentance, so when people try to say their unbelief persist on an intellectual basis, it is rejected by believers. “People reject Him, because of a hardness of their hearts” That would be the biblical basis for unbelief. So, we can go with what people say, or with what Scripture says on the subject. As you know, Christians will point to the bible and trust God in His wisdom, over what people are saying. That is why the Christian will say it is not an intellectual, obstacle, but a spiritual one. It sounds arrogant, but it is just a submission to God and His wisdom!

I used to be offended when I was a non-believer, but as the Scriptures say in Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[AndyF]

God respects human beings. If a person really demonstrates over and over that they don’t want to go to heaven and they don’t want to be with God, why would he consign them to heaven against their will???

Exactly, and the demonstration occurs on earth.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The souls that go to Hell have chosen to do so.

I humbly disagree with the assessment that “The souls that go to Hell have chosen to do so.” Take, for instance, the following Bible verses:

Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

[This seems to suggest that sinners are thrown into Hell. This would strongly suggest it is against their express wishes, since how often must individuals be thrown towards what they desired? Also, why should one fear a being comprised of love?]

1 At that time the Kingdom of heaven will be like this. Once there were ten young women who took their oil lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.2 Five of them were foolish, and the other five were wise.3

6 It was already midnight when the cry rang out,
Here is the bridegroom! Come and meet him!7 The ten young women woke up and trimmed their lamps.8 Then the foolish ones said to the wise ones,
Let us have some of your oil, because our lamps are going out.9
No, indeed, the wise ones answered, …so much for generosity being a virtue]
there is not enough for you and for us. 10 So the foolish ones went off to buy some oil; and while they were gone, the bridegroom arrived. The five who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast, and the door was closed.

11 Later the others arrived.
Sir, sir! Let us in! they cried out.12
Certainly not! I don’t know you, the bridegroom answered.

[This would clearly suggest that these foolish ones desired entrance into Heaven, but were forcibly shut out–merely due to a lack of judgement as it is clear they did nothing particularly heinous.]

The Final Judgment
31 When the Son of Man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne,32 and the people of all the nations will be gathered before him. Then he will divide them into two groups, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33 He will put the righteous people at his right and the others at his left.34 Then the King will say to the people on his right,
Come, you that are blessed by my Father!

41 Then he will say to those on his left,
Away from me, you that are under God’s curse!

44 Then they will answer him,
When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?45 The King will reply,
I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me.46 These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life.

[Here again we have individuals who are surprised they are not being allowed into Heaven, but are instead being forcibly removed to another locale. These ones seem even surprised that Jesus was in their midst at all, suggesting that they would have behaved differently had they known for what to look.]

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.

Why do you think that the only response to opposition available to a being comprised entirely of love is to have the offending individuals expelled and tortured without the ability of reprieve? Jesus suggests that we forgive those who mistreat us, but God appears unable to do the same.

Is it not also strange that a being whose love is claimed to be unconditional carries on such a conditional love routine? Does “Love me or I will torment you/allow you to be tormented!” seem a particularly unconditionally loving response?

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.

Does such a one truly hate God or is it merely the image of God in his mind that he hates? How could anyone truly hate God without having met with him and spent time in his presence?

How could a loving god stand idly by while individuals with a purportedly skewed view of him go on to punishment because of their alleged confusion? For who would truly despise an entity of pure love aside from the mentally/emotionally deranged? And would not such individuals merit some basic allowances given their condition?

A common motto amongst obstinate sinners is:

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

That seems like a very immature motto. It seems purposefully provocative, as though they were hurling it out in order to cover for something else. What use would there be to rule in a realm where none can die, be hurt, or feel hunger?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

@Jelrak

Those who choose Hell, do so by the choices they make during life. Each one of your examples are evidence of this. The last one you try to use as evidence that those who are ignorant will go to Hell which is incorrect since Christ is talking to those who profess themselves to be true followers of Christ when they weren’t. They rather chose to do the opposite of what Christ commanded while at the same time saying they were true Christians.

Of course no obstinate sinner wishes to go to Hell just like no thief wishes to be caught and go to jail.

Why do you think that the only response to opposition available to a being comprised entirely of love is to have the offending individuals expelled and tortured without the ability of reprieve? Jesus suggests that we forgive those who mistreat us, but God appears unable to do the same.

On the contrary. God is more than willing to forgive you of any offence you are truly sorrow for; however, He does not force His forgiveness. He offers it and its up to you to accept it or deny it. Those who are in Hell neither asked for forgiveness with true contrition nor did they want God’s forgiveness.

Is it not also strange that a being whose love is claimed to be unconditional carries on such a conditional love routine? Does “Love me or I will torment you/allow you to be tormented!” seem a particularly unconditionally loving response?

I really do not see how a sinners refusal to accept love, gives any evidence that God is not loving unconditionally. God is not saying “love me or I will torment you”, He is saying “love me because without me there is no true happiness”. God is trying to save you from yourself but until you choose to be saved there is nothing that can be done for you.

Does such a one truly hate God or is it merely the image of God in his mind that he hates? How could anyone truly hate God without having met with him and spent time in his presence?

How could a loving god stand idly by while individuals with a purportedly skewed view of him go on to punishment because of their alleged confusion? For who would truly despise an entity of pure love aside from the mentally/emotionally deranged? And would not such individuals merit some basic allowances given their condition?

God does not stand idly by but is constantly calling for sinners to repent. I personally do not understand how beings who are so dependent on God can ignore His obviouse presence in their lives but sadly they do. Knowing God doesnt keep people from sinning since Adam knew God, Lucifer knew God, and etc. This is because the knoweldge of something doesn’t guarantee the love of it. There are people who dispised good people and there are people that love evil people. Love is in the will not the intellect.

That seems like a very immature motto. It seems purposefully provocative, as though they were hurling it out in order to cover for something else. What use would there be to rule in a realm where none can die, be hurt, or feel hunger?

It is a very immature motto but sadly people say it and follow it.

 

[iloveangels]

As I said before an obstiante sinner can be anyone including a Catholic.

You know, I honestly believe that there are Catholics who think that just because they were baptized before they could walk, it’s impossible for them to go to Hell. Trust me, it’s possible and with an attitude like that, it might even be probable.

 

[sw85]

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.

This is correct. I am only saying it is possible to reject the idea of Hell as a place of literal torment without changing its “Hellish” quality (as C. S. Lewis did).

---

I hope that this thread demonstrates an important point. The whole “argument from Hell” depends for its rhetorical force upon the claim that there is no possible way a loving God would permit His children to be lost forever. So refuting it only requires that there be demonstrated at least one possible way – it doesn’t even matter whether or not it’s ultimately the correct one, only that it be hypothetically possible to reconcile the two. That has, I think, been done here.

 

[clmowry]

You know, I honestly believe that there are Catholics who think that just because they were baptized before they could walk, it’s impossible for them to go to Hell. Trust me, it’s possible and with an attitude like that, it might even be probable.

I’m afraid those who think they possess a “Get out of Hell Free Card” are really holding and “Express Ticket” in the wrong direction.

Folks that think “just because they are Catholic” or “just because they believe” they can do whatever they like have, IMHO, seen seduced by a couple of Satan’s best lies ever.

Chuck

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. A couple points:

@Jelrak

Those who choose Hell, do so by the choices they make during life.

Of course no obstinate sinner wishes to go to Hell just like no thief wishes to be caught and go to jail.

So why claim that individual choose to go there? Choices made in this life are not the same thing as choosing to go to a place of eternal punishment. First, there are the numerous different interpretations of what God’s will actually is, then there are the high number of disagreeing religions, finally there are the many who do not believe in a god at all. Would not the claim that “they all should have known better” and known that it was Yahweh they had to please instead of Kelsi be a bit unfair to those not immersed in that particular belief?

In the second example, the maidens are guilty only of poor planning. They show no malice–they did not attempt to steal oil from anyone–and they did not intentionally commit any ritualistic faux-pas.Remember, the bridegroom was late. They did not expect him to be late and had merely neglected to prepare for that possibility.

In the third example, the individuals were surprised with the outcome. How could individuals who purportedly choose Hell (through actions on Earth or otherwise) be surprised by the outcome?

On the contrary. God is more than willing to forgive you of any offence you are truly sorrow for; however, He does not force His forgiveness. He offers it and its up to you to accept it or deny it. Those who are in Hell neither asked for forgiveness with true contrition nor did they want God’s forgiveness.

In the first example, we have a statement warning us to fear he who has the ability to throw us into Hell. What type of loving being would ever need to be feared for any reason?

Why would such a being have such a conditional love and be unable to forgive those who do not seek forgiveness? Why would he/it not have a neutral approach to sinners instead of a seemingly vengeful one? After all, there is certainly a third option for God: neither admit them to Heaven, nor thrust them into Hell. Why would he instead employ the classic carrot and whip strategy? What has he to fear from a rebellious mankind?

I really do not see how a sinners refusal to accept love, gives any evidence that God is not loving unconditionally. God is not saying “love me or I will torment you”, He is saying “love me because without me there is no true happiness”. God is trying to save you from yourself but until you choose to be saved there is nothing that can be done for you.

Ok, so is this more like a parent warning a child to wear gloves when it is cold, but allowing the child to choose and suffer as a result? If so, is not the suffering instructive in this instance? The child will learn by the suffering and choose more wisely the next time, but with God the suffering is not instructive: it is merely suffering for suffering’s sake. It is more akin to a seemingly friendly neighbor who warns you not to step on his lawn and when you do he sets your house on fire. He warned you what it would be like should the two of you no longer be in a “neighborly” relationship and might even reason that his response, though seemingly overboard by your standards, was just when compared to his stature as the strongest neighbor.

God does not stand idly by but is constantly calling for sinners to repent.

Except for when they are dead, apparently. At that point he seems to no longer wish for them to repent. Why do you suspect that is?

 

[jmvizanko]

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

I do my best to repent for wrongs that I do, I don’t see them as sins. And perhaps you don’t understand that I mean the general definition of repent.

I get the feeling you think I actually secretly believe in your god…

 

[jmvizanko]

Here is a quick seven minute video on Hell by Father Barron. Maybe this might give some insight, to some of the questions posed. youtu.be/x8zhnooySk4

Father Barron is apparently incapable of playing devil’s advocate or seeing what his beliefs look like from outside their framework…

Fr. Barron claims that god is love and that to resist that love is torment similar to the brimstone descriptions of hell. This first assumes that an unbeliever is “resisting” anything. Once again, I am not resisting god’s love, I don’t have any reason to think god’s love even exists. And I am a perfectly happy person, so I’m not sure where this claim of torment has a basis in reality.

Fr. Barron claims that people in hell are making the eternal choice to say no to this love. There is a big divider between the unbeliever in this life, and the unbeliever in hell. The unbeliever in this life does not think god, or “god’s love” exists. If hell and the god that created it exist, and unbelievers go there, now they KNOW that god exists. I can tell you one thing for sure, if I died and ended up in hell, I wouldn’t be saying no to god’s love anymore. This entire argument revolves around the need for the believer to be “ok” with the unbeliever burning in hell, because they assume they just continue on their rebellious rejection, even though it was never rebellious to being with. This is precisely why the C.S. Lewis quote is absurd.

And no, an unbeliever is not “absolutely insisted on not attending the party.” They are somebody that thinks the party is completely imaginary to begin with. If somebody wants to “show” me the party, go right ahead. I’d dance it up, not “sulk in the corner” like Fr. Barron assumes. The problem is, once again, that he is just to used to assuming that what he believes about the unknowable is completely known to everyone.

And his line that the church is not obliging anyone to believe that anyone is in hell is ridiculous. Sure you can say you don’t ultimately know what god does in his judgement, but then the church has plenty of ways laid out that send people straight to hell; ways that many people have done. Suicide anyone?

 

[Searcher360]

Allow me to open with a few points in the interests of full disclosure:

1. I am not a “troll” 2) I am not Catholic and doubt the accuracy of Christianity or any organized religion for that matter. 3) I do believe in God 4) I search for truth and something that resonates with me to believe in and 5) I do not wish to offend, but realize my points & inquiries may inadvertently do so.

While browsing online I found this thread and was fascinated by the exchange as it mirrors my own thoughts. I have, to the disappointment of some, eschewed organized religion as I feel it inconsistent with my version of logic. I don’t fathom why God would go through all sorts of “parlor tricks” rather then just proclaim himself. I look at the history of the world and note the incredible suffering inflicted in the name of religion, with ancient peoples as convinced they alone possessed truth as modern religions today do.

What puzzles me is the often circular logic employed by the devout of many faiths. More specifically, I frequently encounter versions of “If its in the Bible it is true”, followed by" If is true if it is in the Bible".In fact, I see many posters here pointing not to external sources, but fellow believers past and present. Such seems illogical to me on many levels. Citing, in essence, to oneself does not convince me.

I once had a discussion with a priest and commented that to me “there is more than one way to the mountain top”, as I put it. He agreed, which surprised me.

In short, how can any one religion claim exclusive truth? Why would God have all sorts of hoops & hurdles when, in my opinion, a more direct approach is kinder and less confusing. I note with more than a little skepticism that most religions I know arose in a time before science, math, widespread literacy and more. If any religion were the One would it not be inborn? Since people tend to believe in whatever the norm is in the family or community I ascribe belief more to geography than choice.

For me, I continue my search or what feels right to me and view conversations like this as furtherance of my quest. Thanks for the indulgence.

Discuss and comment?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

So why claim that individual choose to go there? Choices made in this life are not the same thing as choosing to go to a place of eternal punishment.

When a thief chooses to steal they are at the same time making the choice to go to prison, since prison is the consequence for stealing.

First, there are the numerous different interpretations of what God’s will actually is, then there are the high number of disagreeing religions, finally there are the many who do not believe in a god at all. Would not the claim that “they all should have known better” and known that it was Yahweh they had to please instead of Kelsi be a bit unfair to those not immersed in that particular belief?

This is besides the point of the thread. In the Catholic faith we believe no one goes to Hell for ignoracne, unless it is willful; meaning they knew the correct path but chose to avoid it, or they did nothing to find the correct path.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

In the second example, the maidens are guilty only of poor planning. They show no malice–they did not attempt to steal oil from anyone–and they did not intentionally commit any ritualistic faux-pas.Remember, the bridegroom was late. They did not expect him to be late and had merely neglected to prepare for that possibility.

In the Parable of the 10 virgins the bridgroom is not late; He comes however at a time not known to the virgins which is why the 5 that kept their oil were called wise because they were not lazy in their duty. The parable shows the sad reality of many souls in this life that think they will just sin now and repent before they die and that everything will be fine. Yet more often than not death strikes them suddenly leaving them with no chance to repent for their sins like they planned to do.

In the third example, the individuals were surprised with the outcome. How could individuals who purportedly choose Hell (through actions on Earth or otherwise) be surprised by the outcome?

Remember when I told you no one goes to hell for being ignorant unless thier ignorance is willful? Those who make no effort to search for God and His commandments in this life are not excused for their ignorance; no more than I will be excused for speeding just because I didn’t bother to pay attention to the speed limit signs.

In the first example, we have a statement warning us to fear he who has the ability to throw us into Hell. What type of loving being would ever need to be feared for any reason?

Why do parents who love their children threaten them with a spanking or being grounded if they do something wrong? It’s because when the “do it because you love me” approach doesn’t work, then the “do it because if you don’t there will be consequences” should work. If anything the children will listen to save themselves if not for the love of their parents. Neither option is any proof that the parents do not love their children.

Why would such a being have such a conditional love and be unable to forgive those who do not seek forgiveness? Why would he/it not have a neutral approach to sinners instead of a seemingly vengeful one? After all, there is certainly a third option for God: neither admit them to Heaven, nor thrust them into Hell. Why would he instead employ the classic carrot and whip strategy? What has he to fear from a rebellious mankind?

Love cannot be forced on someone, it can only be offered. If someone reject the love of another how does this rejection in any give evidence that the person offering the love is not doing so unconditionally? Truly the only beings which have conditional love are the ones that want to force it one you not vice versa.

God cannot be indifferent to sin, since sin is opposed to His very nature which is Goodness itself. Sin is void of anything good and when someone sins they are essientlally chosing what is false over what is true. While God has nothing to fear from sinners, the opposite is the same for His creation since sin never effects only the individual but the whole of creation. God’ is angry not just because you are rebelling agains Him, but because you are also hurting everyone else in the process.

Except for when they are dead, apparently. At that point he seems to no longer wish for them to repent. Why do you suspect that is?

This is because when God calls you, it is a time where you would neither be any better or any worse than you already are. Basically He takes you when you have firmly decided either yes to God or no to God in the manner in which He has tested you.

Like with anyother test in life, you cannot make any more changes after the buzzer goes off. You have been given all the time necessary to complete the test and all the time necessary to pass it.

 

[jmvizanko]

What puzzles me is the often circular logic employed by the devout of many faiths. More specifically, I frequently encounter versions of “If its in the Bible it is true”, followed by" If is true if it is in the Bible".In fact, I see many posters here pointing not to external sources, but fellow believers past and present. Such seems illogical to me on many levels. Citing, in essence, to oneself does not convince me.

Nor me. Its an interesting catch 22: if takes having faith to have faith. Which is why I pose a question like “explain the justice of hell.” I’m looking for an argument that doesn’t appeal to “because the bible/god says so.” And so far it seems most believers think unbelievers are unbelievers for any other reason than they just don’t think its true, therefore they deserve whatever is coming to them, no matter how heinous.

I once had a discussion with a priest and commented that to me “there is more than one way to the mountain top”, as I put it. He agreed, which surprised me.

That would surprise me to. After all, if there is more than one way to the mountain top, why stick to only one? Or why not pave your own way?

In short, how can any one religion claim exclusive truth? Why would God have all sorts of hoops & hurdles when, in my opinion, a more direct approach is kinder and less confusing. I note with more than a little skepticism that most religions I know arose in a time before science, math, widespread literacy and more. If any religion were the One would it not be inborn? Since people tend to believe in whatever the norm is in the family or community I ascribe belief more to geography than choice.

Agreed.

 

[Cristiano]

…What puzzles me is the often circular logic employed by the devout of many faiths. More specifically, I frequently encounter versions of “If its in the Bible it is true”, followed by" If is true if it is in the Bible"…

That has nothing to do with faith but with lack of training in logical thinking. I know quite a few scientists and engineers that easily follow prey of tautologies.

In reference to the Catholic Church you can take the statement that “if it is in the Bible then it is the Truth”. However, a lot of things that are not in the Bible are true. I doubt that you will find the Catholic Church making a statement to the contrary.

 

[Cristiano]

Nor me. Its an interesting catch 22: if takes having faith to have faith…

What you are stating is not exactly true. For Catholics it takes reason to have faith in God. The Church explained that in several documents and it is even in the Bible. You might argue if what we consider sufficient reason is enough for you to believe. I encourage you to read the following article for a brief exposition of what Catholics should be thinking of.

Natural Revelation in the Catholic Tradition

 

[jmvizanko]

What you are stating is not exactly true. For Catholics it takes reason to have faith in God. The Church explained that in several documents and it is even in the Bible. You might argue if what we consider sufficient reason is enough for you to believe. I encourage you to read the following article for a brief exposition of what Catholics should be thinking of.

Natural Revelation in the Catholic Tradition

All of those arguments have had the top interested minds coming up with justifications from either side for a long time. I personally think they are all easily defeatable, and that some are completely laughable (the ontological and fine-tuning for sure). But once again, that’s me. And if there is anything I have learned from debating, people will try to find any explanation concerning the arguments that lets their side win in their head.

So I guess it boils down to there being two sorts of people. The people that just blindly follow along, and either believe what they are raised to believe or surrounded by. These are the people I would say have faith. Then there are the people that have contemplated the arguments and have their opinion about them either way. I don’t think you can say these people have faith. If you think there are a whole slew of reasons why something is true, then you don’t need faith to believe it. You believe it because you “know” its true.

 

[dagelos]

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 is no burning Hell,that is more of a control tool than a Biblical doctrine.

Hell in Strong’s can be translated grave…

7585 sh’owl sheh-ole’ or shol {sheh-ole’}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:–grave, hell, pit.

Jacob/Israel expected to go to hell(Sheol)

Genesis 37:35:And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

Grave been translated as the same Strong’s definition as above.(which is Sheol)

The grave is a place of rest

Psalm 6:5:For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Isaiah 38:18:For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

Psalm 30:9:What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?

Ecclesiastes 9:5:For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Psalm 115:17:The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

Job 3:11-19:11Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

12Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?

13For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,

14With kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves;

15Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:

16Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

17There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.

18There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.

19The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.

God burning sinners forever is a false doctrine.

Jeremiah 19:5:They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jeremiah 32:35:And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Hell comes from the Saxon ‘‘Helle’’ which in Webster’s 1913 is defined as…

[AS. hell; akin to D. hel, OHG. hella, G. hölle, Icel. hal, Sw. helfvete, Dan. helvede, Goth. halja, and to AS. helan to conceal. (?)(?)(?). Cf. Hele,

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,hell

For more info on why the burning hell is a false doctrine read this…

sheldonemrylibrary.com/Where%20Is%20Your%20Soul.pdf - Where is your soul after death.

Hope this helps!

 

[Anthony_V]

Peace be with you.

Allow me to open with a few points in the interests of full disclosure:

1. I am not a “troll” 2) I am not Catholic and doubt the accuracy of Christianity or any organized religion for that matter. 3) I do believe in God 4) I search for truth and something that resonates with me to believe in and 5) I do not wish to offend, but realize my points & inquiries may inadvertently do so.

Duly noted.

While browsing online I found this thread and was fascinated by the exchange as it mirrors my own thoughts. I have, to the disappointment of some, eschewed organized religion as I feel it inconsistent with my version of logic. I don’t fathom why God would go through all sorts of “parlor tricks” rather then just proclaim himself. I look at the history of the world and note the incredible suffering inflicted in the name of religion, with ancient peoples as convinced they alone possessed truth as modern religions today do.

What puzzles me is the often circular logic employed by the devout of many faiths. More specifically, I frequently encounter versions of “If its in the Bible it is true”, followed by" If is true if it is in the Bible".In fact, I see many posters here pointing not to external sources, but fellow believers past and present. Such seems illogical to me on many levels. Citing, in essence, to oneself does not convince me.

This is all understandable. Let me remind you, though, that classical philosophy is the foundation of most Christian scholasticism.

I once had a discussion with a priest and commented that to me “there is more than one way to the mountain top”, as I put it. He agreed, which surprised me.

Sure. Each person has their own journey. But the truth remains that the mountain must be climbed. The mountain peak requires a journey. The question is, how do you know which way will get you to the top of the mountain? I mean this in the most candid manner, that climbing, in and of itself, is necessary. Not walking, nor running, nor crawling, nor jumping. Indeed, we are not talking about a matter of practicality or preference. We’re talking about what works.

In short, how can any one religion claim exclusive truth? Why would God have all sorts of hoops & hurdles when, in my opinion, a more direct approach is kinder and less confusing. I note with more than a little skepticism that most religions I know arose in a time before science, math, widespread literacy and more. If any religion were the One would it not be inborn? Since people tend to believe in whatever the norm is in the family or community I ascribe belief more to geography than choice.

Ahh, the great question of ecclesial deism. Interestingly enough, the Christian religion is inborn. Let’s build upon what we can both assume is true:
A) God exists
B) Humans seek God

Now, let’s focus on part “B”.

***Why do humans seek God? ***

We desire something greater than ourselves. One can be unafraid of death, and still have the need to seek God. There is an intrinsic desire to be fulfilled in a way that naturally good things can’t. We always want more, and always seek more.

Why is It so strange that we seek supernatural goodness when we are natural?

If we are just rational animals with no purpose other than living, why do our upper appetites desire supernatural goodness? Why do our sensible appetites desire sensations, when our rational appetites seek an inner peace that material goods can’t provide? We lack an internal harmony and resonance within ourselves. We are incomplete, and something is missing.

Now, let’s focus on the differences between creature and creator:
We’ve established that we, as humans, seek supernatural goodness which we know springs from our benevolent God. How can we possibly come close to this fountain of goodness when we there is an infinite gap of virtue between us? How can you be intimate with a God who is across a vast chasm? God cannot become less good, or else he would not be benevolent (and we wouldn’t seek him). The only proper choice is for him to elevate us up to a virtue that is naturally proper to him. He imparts his benevolence to us as grace. Thank God we don’t know how he does it, or else we’d fall over dead of being awestruck!

But in order for him to do his secret work, he must grace us in a way that is proper to both his and our nature; The grace he gives must be in a benevolent manner (proper to his nature), and we must receive it in a manner proper to our own nature (freely). You may ask, why must we have free will? The answer is simple: benevolence is kindness that is administered freely; the image of God in virtue is what we are aiming for, and so to be in the image of this supernatural benevolence is to have free will. Furthermore, if we weren’t free by nature, we would not be able to seek to become in the image of benevolence. We would only seek that which is natural to our nature, because we wouldn’t have a choice in seeking what is beyond us. That is to say, the lack of free will is to seek only what we are naturally inclined to seek as rational animals-- natural and sensible goods. This is not the case, because we seek supernatural goods!

So, in order to be intimate with God (as we so desire), he must first freely give us this “grace”, which we must freely accept. This process is “climbing the mountain”, so to speak.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[Anthony_V]

The next question becomes, "how does God give grace?"
Both you and I know that God doesn’t demand the impossible, if he wishes for us to be with him. He will administer grace to us in a way that we would know to look for. How do we actively try and seek God? Well, because we are bound to our nature insofar as reception of grace (i.e. we can only receive grace in a way that is proper to us), we must look for the fingerprints of God in our lives. How do we ask for things? We communicate! What brilliantly redundant logic! We call this process “prayer”. It is proper to our nature to communicate when we need something from someone else, and it coincides with our free will, which in turn magically coincides with the nature of communication. Prayer is to ask for graces, and express the virtue that we receive from these graces when we cooperate with them (reception of grace opens the door to thanks and praise). And that’s the first step I can recommend for you. Prayer is necessary to seeking God.

The next question you might have is, "If God is benevolent and gives people the graces to follow him, why are there so many religions?"

This is because humans are fallible. We’re simpletons, really. We seek to be like him, but we’re subjective creatures. Because God does not demand the impossible, we objectively must have a way to know what’s right and what’s wrong that’s proper to our nature. Certainly not all things are right, because we at least know some things are wrong. That’s why it’s crucial for him to have grounded an organized religion (which is proper to our human nature, rather than some mystical universality). This organization would have the task of dictating right from wrong, and grave from trivial, so as to alert us towards right and wrong in a manner that we can understand. But to have a charism of infallibility, the organization would have to be God-made, not man-made. It would need to be a community, which is proper to our nature. How on God’s green earth can you have a community of fallible beings that infallibly interpret right from wrong without inspiration?

This at least affirms that there is a unified religious organization that:
A) Is based on the relationship between God and man
B) Has an inspired way of infallibly communicating God’s word to man
C) Involves a practical step by step process of reconciliation with God that is feasible
D) Presents God as merciful, who wishes his people to be reunited with him
E) Presents a structured way of receiving grace in a way that is proper to us as humans

I highly encourage you to visit my blog (linked in my signature box). And on the right, there will be a list of my posts I’ve written. Click on “Reinventing the Wheel, pt 1”. While it is scripturally based, it gives some insight on grace.

I wish you peace and joy,
Anthony

 

[Anthony_V]

Peace be with you.

All of those arguments have had the top interested minds coming up with justifications from either side for a long time. I personally think they are all easily defeatable, and that some are completely laughable (the ontological and fine-tuning for sure). But once again, that’s me. And if there is anything I have learned from debating, people will try to find any explanation concerning the arguments that lets their side win in their head.

So I guess it boils down to there being two sorts of people. The people that just blindly follow along, and either believe what they are raised to believe or surrounded by. These are the people I would say have faith. Then there are the people that have contemplated the arguments and have their opinion about them either way. I don’t think you can say these people have faith. If you think there are a whole slew of reasons why something is true, then you don’t need faith to believe it. You believe it because you “know” its true.

Rather, only what you perceive to be true is true to your perception. Whatever will convince you that God exists does not, by necessity, have to be proper to scientism. It has to be proper to you. Thus, believing or disbelieving in a God is not by matter of what is, but by matter of what is perceived to be. That is the downfall of empiricism: it is a subjective measurement. It is what appears to be, not necessarily what ought to be. The very same argument that you apply to theists very much applies to yourself.

Now, in practical terms, comparing empiricism against philosophy is fruitless. You don’t measure the effectiveness of a ruler with a protractor or vice versa. They must work in unison. If God wishes to be known, he will do so by supernatural means. If you reject supernatural means, then you will be an atheist no matter what you do.
The universe either came from order or chaos. I’ve taken my pick.