Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

A sinful life is usually begun in bad habits. Just as one can have a bad habit of not cleaning one’s teeth, so it is with sin. Small sins in childhood gradually become more serious sins in adulthood. Sins against purity are usually begun in adolescence. Any sinful habit, unchecked, leads the soul into further sin. It is in the nature of man.

Also of import is the background information provided to the child as well as the temperament of same.

A morally-upright life, on the other hand, provided it is lived in humility (as opposed to pride and arrogance) and true love for God (rather than for self-interest), is habitually inclined towards Heaven. Such a person is always at risk of committing sin, naturally, but is habitually inclined against sin. If such a person falls into grave sin, it would be unlikely for him/her to stay that way. It is, of course, possible, but not terribly likely. I also believe that God gives us many, many chances to repent before death. A truly loving God always gives enough opportunities for repentance.

What of an individual who might wish to live a morally upright life, but who might not love God? Is it the morality that might be of more importance to God, or the love?

Also, if a soul is provided sufficient opportunities to repent, would not all souls then repent? If not, were there truly sufficient opportunities?

1. Sadly, those in Hell may never leave. The chances to love God are only given in this life, and are there up until the moment of death. The decision is made on earth.

Which might clearly suggest that the choice of the matter is not made by them, but by God. If so, is not God truly responsible for their miserable state given that it is he who is keeping them in it?

What being of eternal love and compassion might offer only a single instant in which to love him prior to forcibly keeping the deficient in eternal suffering?

Thank you for your in-depth response–it was appreciated.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Did not the church find itself faulty on several occasions? Is this not why there were elected anti-popes and why the Vatican was temporarily moved to France? Did it not recently admit to having been wrong to imprison Galileo?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

C. I don’t really know about the Church admitting that it was wrong about Galileo (although I do have a vague recollection), but I do know a bit about Galileo. I thought that the admittance was that the decision had been too harsh, or something like that…

In 1992 Pope John Paul II offered a slight apology for the ordeal.

In any case, the story of Galileo should be better known, since it is the basis of so much mis-information against the Catholic Church, and about history.

Agreed.

1. Galileo was not the first to believe that the earth revolved around the sun. The heliocentric theory was proposed by the Greeks, centuries earlier.

The theory was proposed by Aristarchus of Samos (a Greek mathematician), but was refuted by most other Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Ptolemy. It was not until Copernicus suggested it, publishing it seemingly reluctantly (out of fear of reprisal) under the cover that it was merely a simplified mathematical model for easier calculation, that others such as Galileo gave it serious thought.

1. The secular scientific establishment at the time totally opposed the theory.

Kepler and Copernicus clearly were in agreement, as well as many others, but with Copernicus’ writing having been declared heretical, many were also afraid to support Galileo publicly due to the available consequences. Some who defended Copernicus were ultimately burned at the stake.

1. The theory itself was not even fully correct.

A fact of which Galileo was aware only 2 years after its publication. Nevertheless, his corrected theory would not be published until 35 years later.

1. Galileo was a very arrogant man, and a trouble-maker.

This must have been a strange turn of character for one who was originally initiated into the Camaldolese Order of monks, only to later acquiesce to his father’s insistence that he instead go to medical school. It is agreed that his writing was most certainly a contributing factor to his later difficulties.

1. Galileo wrote about, and taught, the theory, using it to deliberately oppose the Bible and the Church authorities.

This is to be understood in context since the Church authorities at the time were clearly wrong on the subject and the Bible was being improperly interpreted to support an Earth-centered solar system. Given that one of Galileo’s admirers was Pope Urban VIII, who invited him to speak at the Vatican on 6 occasions, and to whom Galileo dedicated Il Saggiatore, it could not readily be imagined that he used his theory to purposefully provoke conflict until his later years. He also refrained from openly discussing his support for Copernicus’ theory for many years and one of his own daughters, whom he loved dearly, was a nun.

1. Galileo was asked to cease creating trouble. He agreed to do so.

He agreed to abide by the decision of the Inquisition of 1616, but the letter provided to him by Cardinal Bellarmine warned only against holding or defending the theory of Copernicus. Clearly the “trouble” warned against was the spreading of what would later be discovered to be “truth” so it is not clear what this point might be trying to suggest.

If Saint Athanasius had equally held his tongue at the time of the Arian heresy instead of “causing trouble” might not Arianism be the position of the Church today?

1. Galileo then wrote a dialogue, based on his heliocentric theory, using characters in conversation with each other. The pope was cast in the character of a donkey.

Not a donkey, a simpleton. This is what actually caused him difficulty because the simpleton in his text used one of Pope Urban’s own phrases as a defense of the geocentric model.

1. Eventually, the Church authorities banished Galileo to house-arrest, at his villa away from Rome. This was where he died.

Imprisoned as a heretic for speaking the truth.

The way that the Church authorities dealt with Galileo may have been done better, in hindsight. This case only proves, however, that the people making decisions are fallible. It does not prove that Christ’s Church is faulty in what it claims to be responsible for teaching - God’s Truth on Faith and Morals.

This seems small comfort given the scope to which the Church seems able to get other things of equal import tragically wrong. After all, we have only their word that they were ever granted this specific infallibility.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Did not the populace also find the church faulty? Is this not why the Reformation occurred?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why might truth be incredibly complicated? Is it not often misrepresentations that are complicated and truths that are simple?

For instance, if God were to claim “Love your enemies and do not kill,” is this particularly complicated to understand or translate?

Alternately, if God were to claim to be the originator of this same message while having previously spent a great deal of time killing and hating his enemies, would this not necessarily become complicated? [Jelrak TB]

A. Truth always becomes complicated when human beings get involved.

Always? How so?

The Scriptures are certainly not simple documents. They are God’s Word, but they are also written by different men, using each particular person’s skills, styles and perspectives. They are inspired by God, which means that they are true, but they are written by men, which makes them less easy to understand.

The truths are simple. This is why the core truths can be identified and compressed into a child’s catechism. This is why the truths can be made into a fresco or stained glass window for the illiterate to ‘read’ and understand.

On the other hand, there are some truths which are beyond man’s comprehension. God is outside of us, and way beyond us. Aspects of His nature are far beyond our understanding, just as aspects of man’s nature are way beyond the understanding of a dog, and that aspects of a dog’s nature are way beyond the understanding of an earthworm.

The facts are that the Bible is not a simple document, despite the fact that the core truths are simple. God has also willed to reveal much more than some simple truths. The less simple truths must be accepted along with the more simple ones, even if it is simply on the basis of faith. Faith is belief based on trust. If I trust that God has inspired the Scriptures, and I trust that they must be (therefore) true, then I will accept them even when I do not fully understand them.

Alternately, if one does not believe the mixed messages of scripture, might one ultimately either not trust God or not trust that God’s words were properly recorded?

B. The Old Testament is not my forte in any way, and those who are more scholarly may be able to answer better. This is my understanding of how it would seem that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New…
I don’t accept that God spent a great deal of His time hating and killing His enemies, for a start.

Would this not then suggest that at least a full third of the Old Testament is in grievous error?

Some time may have been spent where the Chosen People were expected to defend themselves and the One, True God.

Might this have been before or after they were commanded to steal the land of the Canaanites? Before or after they were rebuked for making a peace treaty or admonished for allowing the Middianite women and young boys to live–being subsequently forced to kill them?

The way that these events were reported may make this seem that God was vengeful, but Scripture was written by particular men for particular purposes, to reveal God’s truth. God’s inspiration of Scripture doesn’t mean that the instruments He used to write it (mere mortals) understood things perfectly. They wrote as they understood, and God permitted it to be unclear at times.

Would this not largely render scripture almost entirely useless? If God knew that what he might inspire men to write might become so unclear as to paint him a vengeful monster instead of a being comprised of loving concern, what might have been the point of the revelation? Is it to be considered that either God was incompetent in his ability to communicate or apathetic with regards to the final understanding of his message?

Because of this, I accept Scripture as inspired by God, but the Old Testament as giving way to the New. The Old Law gave way to the New, the Old Covenant to the New. Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the O.T. and the fulfilment of all that the O.T. promised. Jesus ratified much of the O.T. but raised it to a higher level of sanctification. Much more is expected of the Christian than was expected of the Jew, although all had/have to follow God and His laws.

And yet when Jesus was asked if he had come to abolish the old law he claimed quite calmly that not one dot of the old law should pass away. Surely this might have been an opportune time for God to clarify the world of difference between the old and new?

 

[CarolVP]

Dear Jelrak TB,

I have seen that many of the short questions that I attempted to answer (lengthily) have now spawned a new multitude of short questions. Any attempt at answers will have to wait a while, since I will be unavailable to do anything for about a day.

Meanwhile, God bless.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Wow!!! This topic seems miles from its original question!

Is God incapable of properly communicating simple truths to his creation or is he unwilling?

To clarify, would it not appear that either God is to be viewed as a bungler who is not to be trusted to communicate to his creation directly or else the Church did not truly believe the message to be divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny? [Jelrak TB]

What God is capable of and what He permits are two different things. We might wish that He made things clearer, to our satisfaction, but we are not God. We don’t make the rules.

God has decided that His created world reveals His existence and His special Revelation is through the ‘instruments’ He has chosen - mere mortals.

I don’t know** why** God has chosen the less clear way of communicating, and could also wish that it were clearer. I do know that He exists, however, and I trust that His ways are not my ways.

God is not a bungler, because a bungler is an imperfect being, and God is perfect.

That is certainly the claim. Yet when one asks why his message is not clear, why might complex excuses begin to arise to attempt to explain how a perfect being might have been thwarted in its aims of communicating a most important message to the humanity that it loves beyond imagination so as to save all from the terrible torment of Hell? Is this not potentially much more involved than the “simplicity” offered by a more direct evaluation?

If God is perfect, should not his message be perfect?
If God is love, should not his activities have always been loving?
If God is personally concerned with mankind, should not his messages be personal and rendered so as to be easily understood by all?

A man once published a book of sayings that truly captured the essence of living a life in a positive spirit of selflessness. It was simple, succinct, portable, easily translatable, incredibly inspiring, and crystal clear. If a simple man might accomplish such a task, what might render the challenge too great for God?

Re. the statement about the Church “not truly believing the message to be divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny”. What is the point of this?

Kindly consider the alternative: if the Church might have been fully confident that the Biblical writings had been divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny, might they have been as likely to consider banning individuals from reading a copy in a native tongue?

The Church was begun by Jesus Himself. The Church’s credentials are documented into the past 2000 years. The Church gave the Bible to the world - the Church wrote and compiled and verified the accuracy of the Books of the Bible as they are. The Church has the job of safeguarding the teachings as given by Jesus, as well as the accuracy of the Biblical translations. The Church has the job of transmitting God’s Truth through the ages. The salvation of souls is at stake.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Why, then, might it be supposed that such rules are no longer enforced? Is the Church’s duty in this regard now complete?

 

[davidv]

That is certainly the claim. Yet when one asks why his message is not clear, why might complex excuses begin to arise to attempt to explain how a perfect being might have been thwarted in its aims of communicating a most important message to the humanity that it loves beyond imagination so as to save all from the terrible torment of Hell? Is this not potentially much more involved than the “simplicity” offered by a more direct evaluation?

If God is perfect, should not his message be perfect?
If God is love, should not his activities have always been loving?
If God is personally concerned with mankind, should not his messages be personal and rendered so as to be easily understood by all?

A man once published a book of sayings that truly captured the essence of living a life in a positive spirit of selflessness. It was simple, succinct, portable, easily translatable, incredibly inspiring, and crystal clear. If a simple man might accomplish such a task, what might render the challenge too great for God?

Kindly consider the alternative: if the Church might have been fully confident that the Biblical writings had been divinely enough inspired to withstand careful scrutiny, might they have been as likely to consider banning individuals from reading a copy in a native tongue?

OK

Maybe the message is unclear, not because of the sender, but because of the receiver?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

God is Love, Mercy, and Compassion. All Goodness can only be found in Him, as well as Truth. But what happens when one hates God, or indifferent to Him, or reject His truth? Then she has separated herself from God. By rejecting God, she rejects and abandon Love, Mercy, Compassion, Justice, Goodness. Imagine a world like ours without these attributes, what’s left? Hell. Hell therefore is not just a place where pitchfork wielding demons rule and torment damned souls but also the state of an abandoned soul whom by her own sins and unrepentance reject God.

Therefore, hell is a choice, a conscious choice. God did not predetermine men to hell, in contrast the Bible said He WILLS all men to heaven. It’s only freewill that can submit men to this will, or hinder him eternally from God.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Dear Jelrak TB,

I have seen that many of the short questions that I attempted to answer (lengthily) have now spawned a new multitude of short questions. Any attempt at answers will have to wait a while, since I will be unavailable to do anything for about a day.

Meanwhile, God bless.

I apologize for this. It is seemingly bad form to put you to so much effort, but it is appreciated.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Maybe the message is unclear, not because of the sender, but because of the receiver?

It is possbile, but given an omnipotent entity who claims to know each individual perfectly, how might it be possible for the message to be misunderstood if it were intended for the aforesaid individual? Unless, is it to be suggested that the message was not intended for this one ever to receive? If so, why might a personal god wish not to include certain individuals from his plan of salvation?

 

[vz71]

It is possbile, but given an omnipotent entity who claims to know each individual perfectly, how might it be possible for the message to be misunderstood if it were intended for the aforesaid individual? Unless, is it to be suggested that the message was not intended for this one ever to receive? If so, why might a personal god wish not to include certain individuals from his plan of salvation?

If the sender were too clear, it might compromise free will.

 

[davidv]

It is possbile, but given an omnipotent entity who claims to know each individual perfectly, how might it be possible for the message to be misunderstood if it were intended for the aforesaid individual? Unless, is it to be suggested that the message was not intended for this one ever to receive? If so, why might a personal god wish not to include certain individuals from his plan of salvation?

It is not God’s wishes that are at issue. It is the individual’s. In giving us free will, God has relinquished some of his power over us. It is the individual’s wishes and agenda that stand in the way of receiving the message.

God has included all in his plan of salvation. Some choose not to be part of the plan. If the plan is rejected the justice of hell is served.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God is Love, Mercy, and Compassion. All Goodness can only be found in Him, as well as Truth. But what happens when one hates God, or indifferent to Him, or reject His truth? Then she has separated herself from God. By rejecting God, she rejects and abandon Love, Mercy, Compassion, Justice, Goodness. Imagine a world like ours without these attributes, what’s left? Hell. Hell therefore is not just a place where pitchfork wielding demons rule and torment damned souls but also the state of an abandoned soul whom by her own sins and unrepentance reject God.

Therefore, hell is a choice, a conscious choice. God did not predetermine men to hell, in contrast the Bible said He WILLS all men to heaven. It’s only freewill that can submit men to this will, or hinder him eternally from God.

Common ground might be that individuals choose certain actions, agreed. That individuals might ever purposefully, knowingly, or willingly choose Hell, on the other hand, must be very unlikely.

To clarify, would an individual who has arrived at the throne of judgement have the desire to choose anything other than Heaven?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If the sender were too clear, it might compromise free will.

It is possible. In such a case, however, why might some find the message clear and others less so?

Alternately, why send a message at all if it was purposefully intended to be misunderstood by some?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It is not God’s wishes that are at issue. It is the individual’s. In giving us free will, God has relinquished some of his power over us. It is the individual’s wishes and agenda that stand in the way of receiving the message.

God has included all in his plan of salvation. Some choose not to be part of the plan. If the plan is rejected the justice of hell is served.

Perhaps. Alternately, if one is made aware of the message of God, but finds it either unconvincing or doubtful are they truly “choosing” not to be part of the plan?

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps. Alternately, if one is made aware of the message of God, but finds it either unconvincing or doubtful are they truly “choosing” not to be part of the plan?

Sorry for jumping in here, I know this question was directed to someone else.

If one is made aware of the message of God, but finds it unconvincing, I would say it depends on what they find unconvincing.

Firstly, what does the person think is the message of God? What part of that message are they unconvinced about? Are they unconvinced of the existence of God? In which case, the message is irrelevant. Are they unconvinced the message has anything to offer in terms of leading a fulfilling life? If one chooses not to live their life a certain way due to the fact that they are unconvinced of it’s merits, what do they choose instead, and why? What do they think the merits of an alternative way of living are, why have they chosen that?

As to doubt, how many times in life are we fully convinced of anything? How convinced of principles do we have to be in order to live by them? Is it not fair to say that irrespective of how passionate we are concerning certain principles, ideologies or moral good, at times we doubt?

Is someone truly ‘choosing’ not to be part of the plan? They may be, and they may not be. If someone desires heaven but doubts, I would say that is not necessarily rejection of the plan, but rather lack of faith in it. It also depends on what aspect of the plan one does not want to be part of. If one makes up one’s mind one does not want heaven, should they receive it anyway?

Genuine doubt or lack of understanding is something we all experience. However, other forms of doubt are not quite so genuine. ‘I’m not convinced’ can be used as an excuse to turn away from something we know contains grains of truth.

 

[vz71]

It is possible. In such a case, however, why might some find the message clear and others less so?

People tend to hear what they want regardless of what the actual message is.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sorry for jumping in here, I know this question was directed to someone else.

Perfectly OK: it is always good to read your insight.

If one is made aware of the message of God, but finds it unconvincing, I would say it depends on what they find unconvincing.

Firstly, what does the person think is the message of God? What part of that message are they unconvinced about? Are they unconvinced of the existence of God? In which case, the message is irrelevant. Are they unconvinced the message has anything to offer in terms of leading a fulfilling life? If one chooses not to live their life a certain way due to the fact that they are unconvinced of it’s merits, what do they choose instead, and why? What do they think the merits of an alternative way of living are, why have they chosen that?

This is a good scope of concepts to ponder.

The Message, Part I
Let us consider first the message. Irrespective of the existence of God, the message offered by the New Testament authors appears to be a genuinely satisfying means of achieving a moderately peace-filled existence. A world run on these principles would seemingly be sufficiently harmonious. Yes, certain aspects appear to treat women differently than men, but these may be edited out without impacting the more praise-worthy elements. One’s desire to live by these tenets should be generally supported.

The Message, Part II
The message of the Old Testament appears alien to current concepts of justice, civility, love, and compassion. While perhaps a revelation to a primitive tribe of nomads, it nonetheless appears greatly flawed, meandering in its subject matter, and generally unable to stand the test of time. It is difficult to imagine a divine origin as many of the suggested practices are not only barbaric, but seemingly without purpose. The emphasis on hating and destroying appears paramount while demonstrations of compassion and building up are largely absent. Not once do any of the authors advise the Israelites to be a peaceful neighbor, to assist others in times of difficulty, or to spare innocents in a conflict.

Existence of God
Given that the evidence for the existence of God is based in no small part upon the messages allegedly provided by him in his biblical record, it seems appropriate to weigh their consistency and reliability.

It is probable that the original audience understood these messages differently and so understood God differently, but to modern eyes the Old Testament appears a strange contrivance whose very existence tends to contradict support for an all-knowing, all-loving, unchanging God from the beginning of time. God appears to have changed his mind more often than might be expected of an omniscient being, and created far more needless suffering than the claims of his loving and compassionate nature might be able to properly support. His standards have also evolved throughout history, both dramatically after the New Testament, as well as gradually throughout history: the god of vengeance and justice has seemingly been transformed into the god of peace, love, and understanding.

These issues place his existence or, at the very least, understanding of his temperament, in doubt.

As to doubt, how many times in life are we fully convinced of anything? How convinced of principles do we have to be in order to live by them? Is it not fair to say that irrespective of how passionate we are concerning certain principles, ideologies or moral good, at times we doubt?

It is surely so.

Is someone truly ‘choosing’ not to be part of the plan? They may be, and they may not be. If someone desires heaven but doubts, I would say that is not necessarily rejection of the plan, but rather lack of faith in it. It also depends on what aspect of the plan one does not want to be part of. If one makes up one’s mind one does not want heaven, should they receive it anyway?

If one is not convinced of God’s goodness, is one apt to desire a heaven in which God might be forever close by? If such a one might die and discover God to be completely good, might not Heaven then be genuinely desired–but would it be too late given the realization came after the choice in this life was already made?

Genuine doubt or lack of understanding is something we all experience. However, other forms of doubt are not quite so genuine. ‘I’m not convinced’ can be used as an excuse to turn away from something we know contains grains of truth.

Assuredly it may, but surely it must be considered highly spurious to contrive to be unconvinced while at the same time devoting great amounts of time and energy in the pursuit of a conviction?