Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

There is no doubt the Israelite’s lived in a rough justice society which seems totally alien to us today. There are parts of the OT that seem horrific, and the way God is portrayed in the OT we wonder how people could believe in such a God.

To take the example of adultery again. We find tribes and peoples today were adultery is punishable by death. Small communities such as these have very strict moral codes because the repercussions of adultery and multiple sexual partners is much greater. Therefore, the penalty is greater. The reason for this is preservation of the tribe, their culture, and way of life, which requires adhering to strict moral codes. Therefore, when the Divine Law was revealed to Moses, he had the responsibility of preserving it. However, this did not mean someone who committed adultery could not be shown mercy. King David was shown mercy and forgiven.

While Saul was not.

Jesus re-iterated this principle in the NT. When the adulteress was thrown at his feet, he said, ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’

Is it not interesting to note that this story does not appear in any form until after the 12th century?

When a woman of dubious reputation entered the house were he was dining, he recounted a parable to illustrate showing mercy and forgiving is the greater act than retribution - that the ‘slave’ who is forgiven more will love his ‘master’ more.

I disagree that 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.

Would you be kind enough to suggest a passage wherein God has indicated to his people not to kill the children or to avoid harming a group of civilians during one of his many gory campaigns? Further do any passages exist in which God commands his people to look over to the lands of some neighbor and to send them relief during a time of famine as an act of charity?

I Certainly, there are many accounts in the OT that are triumphalist, victory in war and slaughtering enemies, (It was that kind of world) and the authors of the OT focus on the supremacy of their God over all others as that was what was important in that time. In addition, the Ancient Near East was often socially and politically unstable and they were turbulent times. However, there were times the Israelite’s did live at peace with their neighbors, and other passages do focus on this.

Certainly these episodes of peace have been recounted in the OT, but wherein might one find a commandment from God to instigate, promote, or pursue such a peace?

What was termed the ‘Golden Age’ of Israel was a time of prosperity and stability as a consequence of diplomatic relations formed with other powerful nations by David, and then Solomon.

These are an interesting study: David, an adulterous murderer of innocents and liar; and Solomon, a king with around 900 wives who allowed the worship of multiple gods during his reign.

Why might God have rewarded these with peace and prosperity and punished Josiah, the first king to abolish the worship of multiple gods after Solomon and the king who sought to reestablish God’s primacy, with enduring difficulties which would ultimately lead to his ignoble death in battle?

The prophets, particularly Joel and Amos, frequently preached of social justice in addition to the restoration of pure worship, which is one of the reasons why prophets proved unpopular with monarch’s as they frequently criticized them. There are other occasions, such as in Isaiah, were the Israelite’s were advised against going to war.

Do you have any specific references available? A recollection of Isaiah is that it is rife with threats and promises of vengeance. It cannot be recalled wherein God might have warned his people to be considerate of their neighbors given his equal love of same.

People aren’t so familiar with these passages of scripture. I suppose it’s part of human nature to focus on the gore rather than the nice bits when reading any piece of literature.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I have no idea. However, as we’re speaking of a hypothetical scenario and speculating on how an individual would be judged by God …

I’m assuming you’re talking about a person who would have reached an age of understanding. My theory would be - perhaps it would depend on why that person was not, at any point of their life convinced of God’s goodness. In addition, what would convince the hypothetical person of God’s goodness once they die? If they don’t believe it in this life, why would they believe it in the next?

Would not an encounter with God in person put to rest all conjecture?

One only comes to believe in the goodness of God through engagement with God. To illustrate, if one was considering marriage, one could read their autobiography, ask questions of people who know them, and meet members of their family. However, is not fair to say you would need to engage with them at some point before making a lifetime commitment?

If one read an autobiography that strongly suggested that one’s intended spouse enjoyed watching as underlings roamed about and slaughtered all who might disagree with his/her ideals, might one be overly interested in continuing the courtship?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

56 pages later, and have we still not answered this question?

The simple answer is that Hell can’t not suck.

Haha, well OK then!

It’s not an issue of God being spiteful and nasty. God doesn’t have the power to make separation from Him anything less than a punishment because that’s objectively just what it is. He can’t do it any more than He can create an uncreated being.

Some might argue that mankind is for all intents and purposes separated from God while on Earth. Might Earth be considered Hell after a glimpse of Heaven?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Honestly, a devout Catholic doesn’t worry much about eternal damnation. The focus is on doing the will of God - to love him and others. If we do that, we have nothing to fear.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally never think of Hell in this context. I’m simply not motivated by fear, but by love.

Quote:
Maybe but this is still not love. It is self centered, not centered on the benefit of the other person. You mention worries about impacting his character or the theft reflecting poorly on the thief. If he loved, he would worry that he was harming someone else.

Atheists are not cut off from the source of love - they might dismiss God and might be self centered, but they are still God’s children and capable of true love. They just might not practice it as often as they should.

Quote:
Are you starting to understand how poor your understanding of God and those that do his will really is? Catholics don’t substitute love of God for love of their neighbors. They love God THROUGH their love of their neighbors.

Christians are called to love their enemies - this doesn’t mean they have to like them. It means that they will do things to help them and this is in emulation of God, who allows the sun to shine equally on the good and the wicked. You see, we are coming at this from totally different places. You seem to need strategies or reasons to do good for others. Why can’t you just do them because its God’s will for us to help each other…

Quote:
You are so fixated on self interest, you simply can not fathom true love - where people actually care for others above themselves.

We know that doing good for others is pleasing to God and we want to please him. Its the same as it would be for someone who loves a spouse, a parent, or a child and truly wants what they want.

Quote:
Even those that reject God are called by God to do his will through the urgings of their consciences.

No one is condemned until they die. Up until that point, there is still hope of reconciling with God. For that reason, God doesn’t give up on you.

Quote:
No one says that athiests are necessarily evil doers.

it depends on the attitude of the atheist. If the atheist came in and made the statement that he was an atheist because he was smarter than the rest of them, then the reaction would not be positive. If the atheist said, " I’m sorry but I don’t believe in God and this is why", the reaction would probably be neutral and some would try to explain why they believed. If the atheist came in and said, I don’t believe in God but I’d like to understand what you believe and why, then the reaction would be positive.

Quote:
They still have their consciences and societal expectations to guide them.
I don’t get the Japanese reference

i see

Quote:
but the athiest does have a significant disadvantage in that he doesn’t understand love because he doesn’t have the full context of the meaning of life.as you have amply proved in this discourse.

Philosophically speaking, there has to be a reason for something to exist. And that’s the greatest problem with atheism. There is no reason to be. no goal, no nothing. And yes, there is only one meaning for life. I feel that I understand it. You are still searching. I’m trying to help you find it.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Save for the matter of death and natural suffering…

That may have been his opinion… not a dogma. The bible is rife with social and cultural influences that must be taken into consideration.

Agreed, but God did not inspire him, after a moment of prayer, to correct his view so might this not suggest that God sanctioned it?

Parents know that some day, their children are going to disobey and anger them. Does that mean it makes little sense for the parent to get angry when the child is being unruly? A good parent feels rejected and hurt and angry if their child sneaks out and gets high with their buddies and sleeps around. Those feelings may sometimes make a parent wish the child was not born. That feeling often reflects despair more than a true desire for such. The parent feels these things because he/she loves the child.

This is a fair example, but what must clearly differ is that while a parent might know such a day might come (much as all know death will come), one is rarely prepared for the exact instance and substance. Does there not always exist hope that such disputes will be rare? Is not anger engendered by the surprise and disappointment of the moment of occurrence?

How might God, who must surely know every mundane detail, be at all in a position of anger? Is one angered when one gets wet after deciding to go out into the rain?

The Bible is great, it’s cool beans, but it is not required now, nor was it before the matter of the canon was settled some several hundred years after Christ’s ascension.

God’s message to mankind is superfluous?

God foresaw division and confusion, certainly – but we can choose to accept or reject a proposition based on trust and faith whether or not we understand exactly why the proposition is true. God is not at fault or responsible for your bad decisions, or anyone else’s. We all must accept responsibility for our own actions – whether it is accepting or rejecting a salvific truth or something else.

How is not accepting something rife with errors, simply “on faith”, a “bad” decision?

Maybe, maybe not.

I would say that person already is.

OK.

**Now, your concerns about the ‘bloody passages’ I have yet to address because I don’t yet have a good answer for you. I admit that. I don’t need to know why immediately, though – I trust **that the passages have an explanation, and I will be glad to find that when the time comes.

Fair enough.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

John Duns Scotus addressed this issue a long, LONG time ago. Like seven centuries ago or so. The natural law (which includes things like don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.) was ordained by God insofar as it arises from our nature as created beings. Thus God can issue exemptions from it.

In a similar way, God has ordained fire to be a source of heat. Thus He could cause a pot of water placed over a fire to grow cold simply by willing it – but He cannot make it such that the fire is the source of its growing cold (only His will is the source of its growing cold).

Natural law is always subordinate to divine law.

God is able to suspend rules against murdering whenever it suits his purposes? Is he then equally able to suspend being loving and compassionate whenever such might become a similar inconvenience? Would this not then suggest that God might be little more than a psychopath with a penchant for cheating?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God is not adverse to human suffering on earth because it leads to love.

Perhaps the confusion is with kindness versus love. One envisions a loving entity as also being kind, but perhaps this need not necessarily be the case. The question is whether one might love a being that is not particularly kind. Perhaps one might respect such a one or be wary of such a one, but loving it seems an unlikely prospect.

God does not need our love. He desires it because it is good for us to love him, not for his benefit but for ours.

In such a case, why might he shut out of Heaven those who do not love him?

I don’t think he ordered the Palestinians to be massacred so that they could go to heaven - although perhaps some of them did-. Death doesn’t mean the same to God as it does to you. For God, its the end of their test and the beginning of their eternity so God had decided it was time for this transition for them. For you, its just the end… Obviously the ramifications are different when you look at it differently.

Actually, the consideration was more for what it meant to the young Middianite girls who were allowed to survive after watching the massacre of their mothers and little brothers before being forced into relations with their captors. Would not these have grown up to have a necessarily dim view of Israel and its god? What words of comfort might ever have been possible to bring these souls into the kingdom of Heaven? How might a loving God of any decent concern have ignored these victims of his own peculiar campaign?

God IS the source of all love. You can’t truly choose love in the absence of God. Surely you are starting to recognize the difference in approaches…

Is not God equally the source of all disease? Is it possible to choose to be disease-free without rejecting this same god?

This is a function of your misunderstanding of God. God does everything for love, which is self-giving.

Without a loving record, how might one make such an assumption? Is it not equally possible that God is motivated by a desire to see how long mankind might endure in its belief of his goodness in spite of contradictory evidence?

Why might a being of such creative complexity, from the molecular to the macro, decide upon such a simplistic Heaven and simplistic Hell? Why might a God of infinities settle upon a finite test? Does not something seem somewhat amiss?

You think he should be doing things for your comfort, when actually your discomfort is often to increase your love or the love of others toward you. This misconception of motives leads you to think as you do.

No, comfort is not paramount; discomfort is endurable. It is accepted that misery allows for depth of character. What is not as readily accepted is the concept that a god of love is capable of creating (or allowing to exist) a realm in which misery endures forever.

Of course He sees through any attempt to deceive. You won’t distrust Him, however, if you learn more about His motives.

His motives appear to be rather frightening, quite frankly.

The point is that things aren’t always as we perceived them.

Agreed.

Remember, a devout Catholic works for the salvation of all souls. One who loves is saddened by sin and suffering and works to reduce them. You completely misunderstand our motivations and that’s why your conclusions are faulty.

It is hoped that your motivations have not been so maligned, but the motivations of those who rejected the opportunity to assist appeared fairly plain. Still, their behavior towards one another was exemplary so here I persist.

I’ve been on this path before. I would not be shocked if you were in RCIA in the next 6 months.

Have you ever read “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis? In it he gives his own view of heaven and hell and that anyone in Hell can go to heaven whenever they want. The problem is that the things they value: money, sex, power, etc, simply don’t exist in heaven so none of the damned want to be there. I don’t think Lewis is far from the truth in this regard.

This could certainly be a possibility, but would this then suggest that those in Heaven who had endured without such temptations for 5000 years might yet be capable of succumbing to their allure once more in a moment of ennui?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally never think of Hell in this context. I’m simply not motivated by fear, but by love.

OK

Atheists are not cut off from the source of love - they might dismiss God and might be self centered, but they are still God’s children and capable of true love. They just might not practice it as often as they should.

Christians are called to love their enemies - this doesn’t mean they have to like them. It means that they will do things to help them and this is in emulation of God, who allows the sun to shine equally on the good and the wicked. You see, we are coming at this from totally different places. You seem to need strategies or reasons to do good for others. Why can’t you just do them because its God’s will for us to help each other…

Are there limits to this assistance or is it considered God’s will that one assist his competitor to achieve higher sales, for example?

Insofar as love is concerned, is it not generally the case that one must feel some form of connection to another in order to love them in a proper sense? Is not anything less mere posturing or being patronizing?

We know that doing good for others is pleasing to God and we want to please him. Its the same as it would be for someone who loves a spouse, a parent, or a child and truly wants what they want.

This makes sense, but what if one assumes that what is pleasing to God is the destruction of God’s enemies?

No one is condemned until they die. Up until that point, there is still hope of reconciling with God. For that reason, God doesn’t give up on you.

But if God is omniscient, does he not already know with certainty how the story is to end? If so, what purpose is his concern to the one ultimately condemned?

it depends on the attitude of the atheist. If the atheist came in and made the statement that he was an atheist because he was smarter than the rest of them, then the reaction would not be positive. If the atheist said, " I’m sorry but I don’t believe in God and this is why", the reaction would probably be neutral and some would try to explain why they believed. If the atheist came in and said, I don’t believe in God but I’d like to understand what you believe and why, then the reaction would be positive.

Fair enough, but if one merely made the remark casually what is to be the expected reaction of the average Christian? Is not the Christian trained from an early age to mark the atheist as one destined for Hell without a radical change of heart?

To clarify, would a Christian willingly patronize a store owned by one known to be atheist?

i see

Philosophically speaking, there has to be a reason for something to exist. And that’s the greatest problem with atheism. There is no reason to be. no goal, no nothing.

This is certainly one interpretation, but alternately, if the purpose of life is simply to live it, much like any other creature, is this not perhaps sufficient? Alternately, could not the atheist inquire after the purpose of achieving Heaven? What further activities might be available for one perpetually drawn to the splendor of the beatific vision forever in an eternal now? Where all think alike and all stand in unison without conflict or further goals? Is it to be offered that loitering in a beautiful locale for all of eternity is to be considered a particularly noteworthy purpose?

And yes, there is only one meaning for life. I feel that I understand it. You are still searching. I’m trying to help you find it.

And this is greatly appreciated.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c View Post
God is not adverse to human suffering on earth because it leads to love.

What makes you think God is not kind. He gave you everything you have. That sounds like more kindness than any one else ever showed you.

Quote:
God does not need our love. He desires it because it is good for us to love him, not for his benefit but for ours.

Again, people shut themselves out of heaven. god merely allows them to do so out of respect for their wishes.

Quote:
I don’t think he ordered the Palestinians to be massacred so that they could go to heaven - although perhaps some of them did-. Death doesn’t mean the same to God as it does to you. For God, its the end of their test and the beginning of their eternity so God had decided it was time for this transition for them. For you, its just the end… Obviously the ramifications are different when you look at it differently.

Love is possible under even the most severe circumstances.

Quote:
God IS the source of all love. You can’t truly choose love in the absence of God. Surely you are starting to recognize the difference in approaches…

What are you talking about. How is love the same as disease.

Quote:
This is a function of your misunderstanding of God. God does everything for love, which is self-giving.

Wow, is your view distorted.

Why might a being of such creative complexity, from the molecular to the macro, decide upon such a simplistic Heaven and simplistic Hell? Why might a God of infinities settle upon a finite test? Does not something seem somewhat amiss?

Because you are applying your own limited and incorrect view to God.

Quote:
You think he should be doing things for your comfort, when actually your discomfort is often to increase your love or the love of others toward you. This misconception of motives leads you to think as you do.

People can create their own misery as well as their own joy. Its a matter of aligning yourself with God’s will for you. When you try to be something you are not meant to be, you can never be satisfied.

Quote:
Of course He sees through any attempt to deceive. You won’t distrust Him, however, if you learn more about His motives.

What is frightening? That your creator has enough love and respect for you to allow you to make your own decisions? Or that you will be held accountable for those decisions?

Q

uote:
Remember, a devout Catholic works for the salvation of all souls. One who loves is saddened by sin and suffering and works to reduce them. You completely misunderstand our motivations and that’s why your conclusions are faulty.

Have you ever read “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis? In it he gives his own view of heaven and hell and that anyone in Hell can go to heaven whenever they want. The problem is that the things they value: money, sex, power, etc, simply don’t exist in heaven so none of the damned want to be there. I don’t think Lewis is far from the truth in this regard

.
This could certainly be a possibility, but would this then suggest that those in Heaven who had endured without such temptations for 5000 years might yet be capable of succumbing to their allure once more in a moment of ennui?
Once you learn to truly love, sin loses its allure.

 

[sw85]

Some might argue that mankind is for all intents and purposes separated from God while on Earth. Might Earth be considered Hell after a glimpse of Heaven?

In a sense, sure. Might be better to say that our life on earth is like Schroedinger’s cat: presently indeterminate. Could be Heaven, could be Hell; we don’t (can’t) know. At the moment of death, the wave function collapses and our final state is actualized – Heaven, if we died resolved to do God’s will; Hell, if we died resolved to do our own.

 

[sw85]

God is able to suspend rules against murdering whenever it suits his purposes?

We tend to talk about morality as “rules,” but this is only a heuristic. The “law” in “natural law” is a law in the scientific sense: a description of the way things tend to behave. Things tend to behave so as to maximize their own good. Natural law simply defines what that “good” is, according to our natures (hence, natural law – a description of the good as defined by human nature, as ordained by God).

If the prohibition on murder arises from human nature, and if human nature was ordained by God, it follows God has the authority to alter that prohibition. He can’t (or rather won’t) change human nature, but he can change the “goods” that arise from it.

Perhaps it would help to think of goods hierarchically. Normally it’s bad for me to cut off my own leg, but there are circumstances where it would be bad for me not to – e.g., when my leg is gangrenous and amputation is the only way to save my life. Not killing people is pretty high on the list of goods, but it’s not the absolute highest. There are circumstances where it would be wrong for me not to kill someone – e.g., when legitimate self-defense requires it or when the state conscripts me to fight in a war. In other words, there are instances in which we must subordinate a good to some higher good. Given that obedience to God is always an unambiguous good, it follows that whenever a lower good conflicts with it, that lower good must give way to the higher one of obedience to God.

In other words, circumstances sometimes dictate that the prohibition against killing be lifted. One of these circumstances involve one being legitimately commanded to kill by a legitimate authority. Given that God is the most legitimate and most authoritative thing ever (more appropriately, He is legitimacy and authority), it can never be wrong to kill when He commands it.

Is he then equally able to suspend being loving and compassionate whenever such might become a similar inconvenience? Would this not then suggest that God might be little more than a psychopath with a penchant for cheating?

Are you asking why I don’t believe God is evil? Because it’s an ontological impossibility. It doesn’t make sense. “Good” is a matter of degree. God is not merely the highest good, He is the standard of good by reference to which the goodness of every other thing is measured. This is true for lots of complex philosophical reasons I don’t have the time or patience to go into, but if you’re interested in reading more, check out Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

 

[LilyM]

Fair enough, but if one merely made the remark casually what is to be the expected reaction of the average Christian? Is not the Christian trained from an early age to mark the atheist as one destined for Hell without a radical change of heart?

To clarify, would a Christian willingly patronize a store owned by one known to be atheist?

We are ALL, believer and non-believer alike, destined for Hell without a radical change of heart. We all sin, and all need repentance and redemption, believer and non-believer alike. Repentance and redemption are constant, not one-time events that never need repeating.

Being Christian does not mean we view ourselves as being in any way better or more secure spiritually, rather that we have been given greater gifts and so have greater responsibilities accompanying them.

I don’t see why any Christian would have a problem patronising a store owned by someone known to be an atheist. The nature of the business rather than the nature of the owner might be the sole issue - eg a store selling pornography (much of which we believe to be sinful. And such, sad to say, are not exclusively owned by atheists.

 

[jmvizanko]

56 pages later, and have we still not answered this question?

Well I’d argue because there isn’t one… I haven’t seen one yet.

The simple answer is that Hell can’t not suck.

It’s not an issue of God being spiteful and nasty. God doesn’t have the power to make separation from Him anything less than a punishment because that’s objectively just what it is. He can’t do it any more than He can create an uncreated being.

Ummm, apparently you haven’t read any posts from the people that are not on your side of the issue.

Why would god punish me for not believing something I never saw a reason to believe? I don’t choose to not believe in your god, I just don’t think his existence is true. And part of the reason why I don’t believe is questions like these, questions that never generate good answers from believers.

Your post here is just the hundredth time in this thread that a believer says hell is separation from god and that separation is chosen. The latter is not true, since you cannot choose what you think is true. Which therefore makes the former unjust. If being in the presence of god is a better thing than not being in his presence, and god does not share that with unbelievers, then he is unjust.

Of course, if hell is nothing but separation from your god, then it won’t suck for me. After all, I lead a good and happy life while simultaneously thinking your god doesn’t even exist.

 

[sw85]

Why would god punish me

Stop right there.

It is not a punishment, except in the loose sense that it sucks.

It’s just what it is.

When you throw yourself off a cliff, you fall. You don’t get to throw yourself off the cliff and then say “But I changed my mind!” and complain about how unjust it is that you’re being made against your will to hit the ground at terminal velocity. You’re committed to that outcome whether you like it or not. When we say actions have consequences, that’s what we mean.

Again, this is not about God being a nasty meany pants or whatever other infantile bleating you want to resort to. God cannot make it pleasant to be separated from Him. And He cannot make people not be separated from Him who want to be separated from Him without making them not people – free will being part of that which makes us human, so that acting in us contrary to our will amounts to making us into something less than human. Alienation from God just is painful, in the way that a triangle just does have three sides and three angles. It cannot be otherwise; God Himself cannot change it.

for not believing something I never saw a reason to believe? I don’t choose to not believe in your god, I just don’t think his existence is true. And part of the reason why I don’t believe is questions like these, questions that never generate good answers from believers.

Look, I’m not gonna keep going around the merry round with you. You’re ignorant of all the history, all the theology, all the philosophy – in the literal sense that you don’t know any of it and it’s stuff that you should know. If you want to keep claiming you know better than 2000 years (actually, 2400+ years) of philosophers whose works you haven’t bothered to read and then whine that you don’t understand why anyone believes this stuff, well, that’s your problem. Culpable ignorance doesn’t make your unbelief any less sinful. It just compounds the sin of unbelief with the sin of hubris.

You *can *choose not to rectify your palpable, meritless ignorance on the basis of your rancid pride, because you’re just sooo much better than the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, etc. Holier and wiser men than you whose books you haven’t even bothered to crack the cover on. You don’t think Catholicism is true because you’re ignorant of nearly everything about it, and your ignorance is culpable. Laziness and pride don’t (can’t) excuse it.

Of course, if hell is nothing but separation from your god, then it won’t suck for me.

LOL. No one said Hell is “nothing” but separation from God. What was said was that the bear minimum necessary to qualify Hell as Hell is separation from God. You don’t meet any of the criteria to exclude you from all the other stuff that goes on there.

Sad thing is, all you have to do is adopt an attitude of epistemic humility and read a couple of books, and all that can be avoided. Doubt you will, though. Pride blinds as they say.

 

[Imcatholic7]

You are claiming that something seems illogical; are you sure that your thinking is correct? Have you studied what our belief is really about? Have you looked deeply into it and verified that our belief is not reasonable? If you think that our religion is not true then why do you care about this hypothetical hell?

I do not like to watch movies about zombies, I think they are just work of imagination, I do not have any reason to believe in their existence, and so I do not spend time wondering about zombies.

I completely agree!

 

[Imcatholic7]

Except I can’t choose what I believe is true or not. I don’t choose to go to your god’s hell any more than you choose to go to the hell of the god of the Muslims. You just don’t think their religion is true, just as I don’t think your religion is true. I couldn’t choose to believe that your religion is true any more than I could choose to believe that 2+2=5.

Your are choosing to believe that our religion is not true. And your choosing to wonder about a hell that you “don’t believe in”.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What makes you think God is not kind. He gave you everything you have. That sounds like more kindness than any one else ever showed you.

Is kindness required in order to bestow upon one numerous things which cost the giver neither in expense nor effort? Is an author kind to his subjects if he should provide for them an imaginary castle in which to dwell?

Further, is kindness known to attach strings to blind tests with limited tolerance for error?

To clarify: is it a kindness to place a soul in a test not of its own choosing?

Again, people shut themselves out of heaven. god merely allows them to do so out of respect for their wishes.

God is passive with regards to the refusal of any to dwell with him in Heaven, but active in his barring them from later entrance? Does not Jesus claim God to be active in both regards?

Love is possible under even the most severe circumstances.

Would you love one who massacred your family in such a manner? Would you love even more the one who commanded the soldier to so act?

What if this one claimed to be love itself and offered you a heartfelt embrace if only you would cease questioning his motivations?

What are you talking about. How is love the same as disease.

If one cannot retain a relationship with God because of a rejection of one of his gifts, how might one still maintain same through the rejection of a different gift? Alternately, if God is the source of all, would not a rejection of him bar one from receiving all gifts, both positive and negative?

Wow, is your view distorted.

An attempt was made to reconcile the raging god of the OT with the peaceful god of the NT and this was one of the possible results that availed itself. If the mind of God is beyond the scope of human comprehension, is not any possibility equally plausible?

Because you are applying your own limited and incorrect view to God.

How might one ever be certain that their own view is neither equally so limited nor incorrect?

People can create their own misery as well as their own joy. Its a matter of aligning yourself with God’s will for you. When you try to be something you are not meant to be, you can never be satisfied.

How long might it take for one in Hell to realize this given such knowledge is readily available here on Earth?

What is frightening? That your creator has enough love and respect for you to allow you to make your own decisions? Or that you will be held accountable for those decisions?

That one’s creator appears so aloof as to even be willing to allow one to precipitate into Hell if one adheres to the wrong set of beliefs. If only two systems of belief were to exist such may not be so problematic, but with thousands does life not become somewhat precarious?

Must one not consider the sins of omission prior to resting assured of one’s own salvation?

Q
It is hoped that your motivations have not been so maligned, but the motivations of those who rejected the opportunity to assist appeared fairly plain. Still, their behavior towards one another was exemplary so here I persist.

Would sin not equally lose its allure once one has dwelt in a realm in which it can no longer be accessed? How is the glutton to receive his fill of chocolate cake in Hell?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In a sense, sure. Might be better to say that our life on earth is like Schroedinger’s cat: presently indeterminate. Could be Heaven, could be Hell; we don’t (can’t) know. At the moment of death, the wave function collapses and our final state is actualized – Heaven, if we died resolved to do God’s will; Hell, if we died resolved to do our own.

Do not both options then result in stasis?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Would sin not equally lose its allure once one has dwelt in a realm in which it can no longer be accessed? How is the glutton to receive his fill of chocolate cake in Hell?

Hell is a state of being characterized by despair, ruin, and torment because a person places more importance in worldly desires than he does in God – and because man is an eternal soul, when this world has ceased to be and his soul has passed into eternity, his desire will consume him like an eternal flame, no longer able to be satisfied.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

We tend to talk about morality as “rules,” but this is only a heuristic. The “law” in “natural law” is a law in the scientific sense: a description of the way things tend to behave. Things tend to behave so as to maximize their own good. Natural law simply defines what that “good” is, according to our natures (hence, natural law – a description of the good as defined by human nature, as ordained by God).

If the prohibition on murder arises from human nature, and if human nature was ordained by God, it follows God has the authority to alter that prohibition. He can’t (or rather won’t) change human nature, but he can change the “goods” that arise from it.

Perhaps it would help to think of goods hierarchically. Normally it’s bad for me to cut off my own leg, but there are circumstances where it would be bad for me not to – e.g., when my leg is gangrenous and amputation is the only way to save my life. Not killing people is pretty high on the list of goods, but it’s not the absolute highest. There are circumstances where it would be wrong for me not to kill someone – e.g., when legitimate self-defense requires it or when the state conscripts me to fight in a war. In other words, there are instances in which we must subordinate a good to some higher good. Given that obedience to God is always an unambiguous good, it follows that whenever a lower good conflicts with it, that lower good must give way to the higher one of obedience to God.

In other words, circumstances sometimes dictate that the prohibition against killing be lifted. One of these circumstances involve one being legitimately commanded to kill by a legitimate authority. Given that God is the most legitimate and most authoritative thing ever (more appropriately, He is legitimacy and authority), it can never be wrong to kill when He commands it.

Is this to suggest it is a realistic possibility that God, a being of vast intellect and resources, may, from time to time, find little other recourse than to command his followers to murder their fellow men for reasons of his own convenience?

Would the Canaanites have viewed their own slaughter as good?

Are you asking why I don’t believe God is evil? Because it’s an ontological impossibility. It doesn’t make sense. “Good” is a matter of degree. God is not merely the highest good, He is the standard of good by reference to which the goodness of every other thing is measured. This is true for lots of complex philosophical reasons I don’t have the time or patience to go into, but if you’re interested in reading more, check out Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

Thus if God decrees an act to be good that was formerly evil one’s conscience will immediately adjust?

If God is able to stoke the fires of Hell and the screams of the damned waft up to Heaven, will all of the saved understand this as good?