Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

OK, thank you for this.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

Is it not more akin to a parent warning a child not to place a fork in an electrical outlet? Yet what loving parent might remain in an easy chair while the disobedient child begins to be char-broiled? Does not true love demand the lover to act to save the beloved from harm even when the actions have been willfully chosen?

Is it not only the indifferent who might wish to allow the suicidal to finish their jump so as to resume proper traffic flow?

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.

Did God not make the system entire?

Can he not unmake any part any time he should so wish?

Why might he prefer an individual be in eternal torment rather than modify the system?

What might prevent a god of pure love from awarding the damned a second, third, or infinite number of chances at redemption?

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.

Kindly understand that when a Christian claims to follow a god of love, and to wish to emulate such love that is more powerful than one can ever know, it is difficult to fathom when discord might be so easily provoked.

Perhaps if one might consider the atheist a tiger with a thorn imbedded in its side one might better understand the roar when one pokes at the wound. How is one to get close enough to withdraw the source of the agitation if the tiger is continuously aggravated?

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.

Is not pride of certainty pride nonetheless?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I completely agree!

How many in one’s immediate circle of family or friends might take the zombie threat so seriously that they might pour resources into the creation of tax-subsidized zombie warrior schools and churches? How many might repeatedly condemn zombie doubters as lowlife, conceited, fools who will surely be tormented for all eternity because of such willful blindness?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

What disembodied being might, after death, still wish to pursue beer and television as a means of coping with life’s difficulties? Are not life’s difficulties no longer extant at such a point? Would such a one who ignored God in favor of these vices still seek to resume them while no longer experiencing either the pressures that made them appear necessary nor the bodily desire to so indulge? Further, might such a one truly seek to locate beer and television in Hell?

Or might not the act of death itself provide a true awakening to the realization that beer and television were simply ephemeral diversions? Would not the clarity of God’s reality be so sublime so as to tempt even the most die-hard sinner to reconsider his miscalculation?

Yet at this very same moment of clarity is it not claimed that God will not listen to any appeals, but will merrily thrust the “evil doer” into the abyss where he might be tormented for all eternity by demons and flames? (Is not such a move akin to willingly handing a terrorist over to a nation that engages in torture in order to provide the type of retribution desired by the one, while at the same time screening the one from direct involvement?)

 

[jmvizanko]

Your are choosing to believe that our religion is not true.

No, I think it isn’t true for things I can’t choose, like what side wins in the argument over the problem of hell. I don’t choose why my side wins, or because I want it to win, it just does win to me because of how my mind works. I can’t change how my mind works without drugs or a hammer.

And your choosing to wonder about a hell that you “don’t believe in”.

I am choosing to ask about it, out of curiosity. But I can’t choose what my reaction is to what claims or arguments are made.

 

[Imcatholic7]

How many in one’s immediate circle of family or friends might take the zombie threat so seriously that they might pour resources into the creation of tax-subsidized zombie warrior schools and churches? How many might repeatedly condemn zombie doubters as lowlife, conceited, fools who will surely be tormented for all eternity because of such willful blindness?

God does not send someone to hell, they choose to do it themselves. People choose to do bad things, they must suffer the consequences. Especially people willingly doing it.

 

[jmvizanko]

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.

Ah, but you can know and see that the cliff exists, and you can know that if you jump off of it you will fall quickly and die when you hit the bottom. How can I know that there is a God that is going to send me to hell? Allah also supposedly will send me to hell, should I believe in him too just in case?

A better analogy would be:

If a person doesn’t know they are blindfolded because they have been their whole life, and then falls off a cliff because they didn’t even know it was there, or that cliffs even existed, is it that person’s fault or the person that blindfolded them and never told them the danger of cliffs?

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.

Once again, people who do not think he exists are not choosing to be separated from him. Are you choosing to be separated from Vishnu? No, you don’t think they exist. If Vishnu did exist, and was the only god, we would both be interested in meeting them and being with them if they are a supreme source of good and knowledge. Likewise, if your god exists, (and they didn’t send people to hell), what makes you think unbelievers would not want to be with them?

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.

Thanks for all the ad hominem. Yet for all the appeal to higher thinkers and thoughts that confirm your faith, you can’t sufficiently answer my basic objections to your faith.

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.

And the very fact that all the criteria I need to meet to exclude me from all the “other stuff” excludes the fact that I am a good person is exactly one of the main objections against hell.

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.

Yay for more ad hominem. Am I not here discussing the issue, instead of just sitting watching sports and remaining an ignorant militant atheist, something I think is just as bad as an ignorant thest? Why don’t you point me in the direction of these excellent passages in books, since you clearly can’t reiterate them as they apply to this topic.

 

[paul_c]

Is kindness required in order to bestow upon one numerous things which cost the giver neither in expense nor effort?

Kindness is doing something for someone else, whether it cost something for the giver or not.

Is an author kind to his subjects if he should provide for them an imaginary castle in which to dwell?

Did his subjects recognize their castle as a kindness or were they ungrateful?

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

You are given every chance in life to get to heaven. You are simply ungrateful for the chance.

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

You have choices and you should be grateful to God for his respect to you to give you life and free will. You have so much anger. I wonder why…

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?

God actively calls all men to himself. Jesus said he came to save not to condemn. You have this wrong.

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?

WE are called to love our enemies, are we not?

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

You can question God’s motivations, but you are a fool if you think your morals are higher than Gods.

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?

God does not withhold his love because you reject him. You reject him, yet you still live and hopefully experience some good things.

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?

God is the same in both the Old and New Testament. The focus of the various books is different depending on what they want to emphasize.

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

If you allign your views with the Church, you can be confident that
you have the truth. If you try to analyze scripture on your own, you can easily be wrong.

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

Who knows? They never reacted to that truth on earth, maybe they will continue to ignore it for eternity.

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?

God is not aloof. Everyone has the truth written on their hearts. Some just simply ignore it. That is their fault.

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

Of course. But no devout Catholic ever claims to be assured of their own salvation. They simply do their best and leave the rest to God.

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?

Selfcenteredness can always be accessed. The rest is detail.

 

[minkymurph]

While Saul was not.

Your many questions require an in depth answer, and in order for my posts not to turn into a ‘War and Peace’ length criticism of the OT …:hypno:

Could you clarify a few points so I can give you a point specific answer?

Firstly, why would you say Saul was not forgiven, and what would you say he wasn’t forgiven for?

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

Why do you say the story does not appear in any form until after the 12th century?

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?

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?

I’m compiling a list at this very moment. :hammering:

I’ll get back to you when it’s complete.

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?

I’ll get back to you on this as well.

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.

Yes, I do have specific references - on this as well. Suffice to say for the moment, the fact that the Israelite’s and other nations were unjust in treatment of each other and their neighbors was a major reason why oracles containing threats and promises of vengeance were declared.

 

[minkymurph]

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

Well, it didn’t seem to work that way for Satan.

Bringing it down to a more human level, is it not the case that those who choose live unprincipled and/or immoral, (not merely sexually immoral lives) choose to keep company with those of the same mindset? People who lead such lives tend not to seek the company of those who try to live principled moral lives. The reason being, it makes them feel uncomfortable. When they surround themselves with people who are like them, they can’t behave how they want without fear of being judged. They recoil from them and in fact, may actually reach the point were they harbor hatred towards them.

Opposites do not necessarily attract. Therefore, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ repel each other. On encounter someone who has committed grave and serious criminal acts, a natural response of a large percentage of people would be to recoil from them, and they do not feel that comfortable in their company. Those who have committed similar acts will not feel so uncomfortable. Therefore, a person whose soul has become so corrupted the ‘goodness’ within it has ‘died,’ will not want to be in God’s presence, or the presence of those who have a desire to be God-like. In this life, they get to reap the benefits those who lead principled, moral lives create, irrespective of the fact they personally do not contribute to that good, and do not appreciate it other than for their own selfish needs. They cease to reap those benefits in Hell.

Of course the question could be asked would this in itself prompt a person to repentance? Not if the soul reason they desire to escape Hell is to continue their parasitic existence on those who create good - reaping the benefits of the good created by others while at the same time despising them for the fact they create good. Sadly, I believe there are people like this in world. As to who they are as individuals, that is known only onto God.

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?

Interesting question. Throughout history many men and women have married this very person.

If one had no interest in courtship in the first place, it would much matter what the autobiography said. If one did have an interest, it would depend how serious they were in terms of their desire for courtship, and why they were considering courtship in the first place. If the intent was a serious one, I would say the first question the person considering asking themselves would be, is it true? They may also ask themselves; who wrote the autobiography, why did they write it, and why would they profess to love and worship such a person?

 

[paul_c]

Jelrak,
your posts continually contain comments that suggest you think God is immoral. I will ask you a fundamental question. What is the basis of your assessment? Who decides right from wrong? Are you the final arbiter? If so, what are you qualifications?

You see, you are a limited creature (like the rest of us) and your insight into these situations is also limited. So how do you presume to judge God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, and who created the universe and defined what is right and wrong as part of the architecture?

God does not have to align to your wishes. You need to align to his. This was Satan’s problem- he was too proud to serve. I think this is a common problem in Hell.

If you see inconsistencies in how God applies his justice and morality, consider the fact that you might not understand the whole story. Once you start recognizing that the problem is your own limitations, not God’s, then you will have peace and start on the road to wisdom.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What disembodied being might, after death, still wish to pursue beer and television as a means of coping with life’s difficulties? Are not life’s difficulties no longer extant at such a point? Would such a one who ignored God in favor of these vices still seek to resume them while no longer experiencing either the pressures that made them appear necessary nor the bodily desire to so indulge? Further, might such a one truly seek to locate beer and television in Hell?

Why would a soul choose the divine substance to alleviate one means of suffering – namely hell fire – when he chose a created substance to alleviate the other means of suffering?

Or might not the act of death itself provide a true awakening to the realization that beer and television were simply ephemeral diversions? Would not the clarity of God’s reality be so sublime so as to tempt even the most die-hard sinner to reconsider his miscalculation?

Why would a soul choose to favor the divine substance when he realizes that the divine substance has condemned him to eternal hell fire? Would the same soul not grow in contempt and hatred for the divine substance which consigned him to such torment?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God does not send someone to hell, they choose to do it themselves. People choose to do bad things, they must suffer the consequences. Especially people willingly doing it.

Why might love choose to make another suffer for any reason? Is it not evil that makes one suffer for disobedience and good that attempts rehabilitation?

Further, how might one imagine any being of sane reasoning choosing Hell willingly?

 

[paul_c]

Why might love choose to make another suffer for any reason?

If there weren’t ramifications to your decisions, then your decisions wouldn’t be meaningful, would they? Would you like a life where nothing really mattered?

Is it not evil that makes one suffer for disobedience and good that attempts rehabilitation?

Surely you understand that a good parent is one that disciplines their child, not one that simply spoils them…

Further, how might one imagine any being of sane reasoning choosing Hell willingly?

If you knew that doing God’s will led to heaven, but you willing chose to disbelieve this, aren’t you in fact making this decision yourself? What is your motivation?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Kindness is doing something for someone else, whether it cost something for the giver or not.

Is not the level of kindness to be measured against the effort involved?

Did his subjects recognize their castle as a kindness or were they ungrateful?

Fair enough.

You are given every chance in life to get to heaven. You are simply ungrateful for the chance.

This is possible. Or perhaps might it not be equally possible that the chance seemingly does not outweigh the risk?

You have choices and you should be grateful to God for his respect to you to give you life and free will. You have so much anger. I wonder why…

Apologies if it might appear that anger lies behind these words, but it does not. The proper emotion most closely associated is sorrow.

God actively calls all men to himself. Jesus said he came to save not to condemn. You have this wrong.

OK

WE are called to love our enemies, are we not?

Why might God have commanded one man to become the enemy of another?

You can question God’s motivations, but you are a fool if you think your morals are higher than Gods.

If one is able to consider the actions of a god and determine them to be short of ideal, by what standard might they be able to so judge? If morality exists only in the eyes of God, would it not necessarily be God who must be providing the very sentiment behind the consideration that God’s actions fall short? Essentially, is God not responsible for inspiring the one to consider God’s actions as wrong? Is it not possible that that is the test? Is it not possible that God would wish mankind to arrive at such a conclusion in order to arrive at the next level of responsibility?

Alternately, is not the identification of the wrong perhaps, as has been previously suggested, merely evidence of a misunderstanding rather than evidence of a judgement?

God does not withhold his love because you reject him. You reject him, yet you still live and hopefully experience some good things.

Let us return to the source of this question. It is stated that God is the source of all love because God is love itself. Yet also, God seemingly is the source of all disease. Does disease find its root in love?

If not, how might disease be possible?

If so, is it not possible that eternal torment also finds its root in love?

God is the same in both the Old and New Testament. The focus of the various books is different depending on what they want to emphasize.

Why might some wish to emphasize God’s thirst for blood and vengeance?

If you allign your views with the Church, you can be confident that
you have the truth. If you try to analyze scripture on your own, you can easily be wrong.

If all of the faithful comprise the Church, how might any individual member be wrong?

Alternately, if any of the component parts of the Church may be wrong, how is it certain that those who have analyzed the Bible and provided the Church sponsored answers were not wrong at the time of their analysis?

Who knows? They never reacted to that truth on earth, maybe they will continue to ignore it for eternity.

Perhaps, but surely the law of averages demands that some among their number might yet come to a realization. If so, what then?

God is not aloof. Everyone has the truth written on their hearts. Some just simply ignore it. That is their fault.

Perhaps this is true, much like the parent of the child whose finger is in the light socket is not aloof for watching him burn; the warning about the light socket had been clearly stated previously, but the child simply ignored it.

The child is clearly at fault, but is the parent seemingly lovingly concerned or emotionally divorced?

Of course. But no devout Catholic ever claims to be assured of their own salvation. They simply do their best and leave the rest to God.

Is not such perhaps a fearsome gamble given God’s potential range of temperaments arrayed throughout the Bible? What if God is truly as fanatic as some of his former decrees might suggest? Would not a Catholic be required a daily Mass attendance, perpetual adoration appointment, daily Rosary, and weekly confession at the very least? But is even this evidence of loving God with one’s whole heart, mind, and soul?

Selfcenteredness can always be accessed. The rest is detail.

How might a disembodied spirit express its self-centeredness in Hell with nothing therein to covet or collect?

 

[Imcatholic7]

Why might love choose to make another suffer for any reason? Is it not evil that makes one suffer for disobedience and good that attempts rehabilitation?

Further, how might one imagine any being of sane reasoning choosing Hell willingly?

God is not making you suffer. You’re making yourself. You have all of the chances to repent during your life but when you die, you are held accountable. They choose it willingly by knowingly rejecting Christ and His teachings.

 

[minkymurph]

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?

Interesting question. I would suggest what you are eluding to is Just War theory - and would further suggest we find the beginnings of Just War theory in Deut 20.

If you don’t mind, I’ll paraphrase as I wouldn’t have the word length to quote the entire chapter, I’ve no inclination to do so 'cos I’m too lazy, and an if anyone is all that interested they are quite capable of reading it for themselves.

To illustrate the beginnings of Just War theory -

Deut 20:5-9 - *When you go to war, the officials shall address the troops…Has anyone built a house and not dedicated it? He should go back and dedicate it or he might die in battle and another dedicate it. If anyone has planted a vineyard, but has not enjoyed its fruit, he should go back to his house or he might die and another enjoy its fruit. Has anyone become engaged to a woman and not married her? He should go back to his house and marry her or he might die and another marry her. Is anyone afraid or disheartened? He should go back to his house or he might cause the heart of his comrades to fail. When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace.

The principle here is that in the first instance, the Israelite’s were to seek peace with the neighbour’s before engaging in war.

'If it accepts your terms of peace and surrender, all the people in it shall server you in force labour. When the Lord you’re God gives it into your hand, you shall put all males to the sword. The women, the children, livestock and everything else in the town you may take as booty.*

Strangely, this passage goes on to say, the Israelite’s must not let anything that breathes remain alive. Certain tribes were to be annihilated. Is that not a bit of a contradiction given what has just been said about women, children and livestock?

Further to this, trees were to remain unharmed. 'Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under siege from you? [20:19]

Is the message the author is trying to communicate God thinks trees are more important than humans? A literal reading of this passage of scripture doesn’t make much sense. Therefore, this passage requires further explanation.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Kindness is doing something for someone else, whether it cost something for the giver or not.

Why would it be? You can’t put a price on Kindness or love. T

Quote:
You are given every chance in life to get to heaven. You are simply ungrateful for the chance.

So what is it that you are risking on earth that is more valuable than eternal bliss?

Quote:
You have choices and you should be grateful to God for his respect to you to give you life and free will. You have so much anger. I wonder why…

Interesting. Why do you feel sorrow?

Quote:
WE are called to love our enemies, are we not?

Where did God ever command someone to hate another? As to the Midianites in Numbers 25: 18, They became enemies of God and the Israelites by their actions.

Quote:
You can question God’s motivations, but you are a fool if you think your morals are higher than Gods.

God is the creator of the universe and the arbiter of Good (that which is consistent with his plan) and evil (that which opposes it). It is illogical that God would do something against his own will, so if you perceive that this is the case, then isn’t it obvious that it is your perception that is faulty?

Quote:
God does not withhold his love because you reject him. You reject him, yet you still live and hopefully experience some good things.

Disease isn’t opposed to love. In fact, disease often leads to love - where one person comes to the aid of another. A young girl I know contracted cancer. The community rallied around her and her family to such an extent that she told me that despite the pain, the disease made her feel loved to such a degree that it was the best time of her life. As for eternal torment of hell, it results from a lack of love on the part of the condemned. Just as dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat, hell is the absence of love.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
God is the same in both the Old and New Testament. The focus of the various books is different depending on what they want to emphasize.

This is not the emphasis of any Scriptural account. That is your distorted view of the message. The real message of those passages is that God calls all men to Himself and only by doing His will can man really be happy. Those that oppose His will will be held accountable for their choices, sometimes in this life but always in the next. But
God is also merciful, ready to forgive all past sins of those that repent in the prescribed way.

Quote:
If you allign your views with the Church, you can be confident that
you have the truth. If you try to analyze scripture on your own, you can easily be wrong.

When Jesus was on earth, he appointed 12 men with the authority to represent him (the Apostles). These men were trained by Jesus for 3 years and then they received the Holy Spirit to protect them. One of the, Peter, was given the keys to heaven and the overall leadership of the Church, with the power to bind and loose. Peter passed that authority down to his successors, who are also protected by the Holy spirit to ensure that they teach only what their successors taught (applying it of course to new realities). You can convince yourself of the continuity of Church doctrine by tracing it back through church records through the writings of the early church fathers.

Quote:
Who knows? They never reacted to that truth on earth, maybe they will continue to ignore it for eternity.

Maybe they all recognize that they were ultimately responsible for separating themself from God and that is the source of their agony

Quote:
God is not aloof. Everyone has the truth written on their hearts. Some just simply ignore it. That is their fault.

Why must you always blame someone else for your errors? Isn’t part of being an adult taking responsibility for your own actions? And it would be wrong to assume that God just passively watches someone burn. He is constantly reaching out. But he does leave us responsible for our actions.

Quote:
Of course. But no devout Catholic ever claims to be assured of their own salvation. They simply do their best and leave the rest to God.

You are missing the reality of God. When God appears angry, its not at those who are doing his will. It is at those who fail to do it. At love is not measured by times at mass or hours of adoration. And I know plenty of people who go to daily mass, say a daily rosary, attend eucharistic adoration, read the bible, frequent confession, do works of mercy and reach out to those who doubt. They do those things out of love not out of fear of damnation. You see, if you start on the path of understanding Gods will for you, you start feeling inwardly compelled to do those things that are best for you. For some people, this means daily mass. For others it might be working in a soup kitchen. for others, it might mean giving Catholic answers on the internet. And trust me, there is great joy in doing God’s will for you

Quote:
Selfcenteredness can always be accessed. The rest is detail.

First of all, we believe in the resurrection of the body, so those in hell are not disembodied spirits. Secondly, you can covet things you can’t attain.

 

[minkymurph]

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?

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.

To my knowledge, there is no one verse in the bible that states specifically the Israelite’s were to be nice to other tribes, and give them food in times of need. However, the principles are laid down.

Ex 12:37 'The Israelite’s journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot besides children, and a mixed crowd went with them.

As we understand it, the ‘mixed crowd’ may have been non-Israelite’s. Therefore, freedom from slavery in Egypt was not reserved solely for the Israelite’s, neither was worship of the God of Israel. Job was not an Israelite. Neither were Rahab or Ruth. There are also references as to how the ‘alien resident residing in your midst’ was to be treated in the OT. I can’t find the references at the moment 'cos I haven’t put my mind to it. :whacky:

God showed mercy to Ishmael, [Gen 21:13] Melchizedeck found favor with God, [Gen 14:17-20] as did Esau and his descendants which I will come back to, and Egypt and Assyria are blessed and referred to as ‘God’s people.’ [Isaiah 19:24,25] What this tells us is the Israelite’s were not to consider themselves an elite group who didn’t have to care about anyone else.

Coming back to Esau, the story goes he sold his birthright to Jacob. Did this mean Esau was a bad son and God turned his back on him preferring Jacob? Not so. There is a reconciliation between Jacob and Esau and they do not engage in war. [Gen 33] The Israelite’s do not engage in war with Esau’s descendant’s the Edomites, when refused passage through their land. [Num 20:14-21] Land was given to the Edomites and the Israelite’s were instructed not to engage in war with the Moabites as they were descendant’s of Lot. [Deut 2:1-9] So, the underlying principle was to avoid war with their neighbour’s were possible, and to recognize they had certain entitlements.