Explain the justice of hell.

[onemangang]

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

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

I love the vainly puffed up, pseudo-intellectual outlook of the evangelical Atheist. It only solidifies my belief in Holy Scripture

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Thanks

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

Perhaps, but being caught is never a certainty and a thief rarely steals in order to go to prison.

But of course the question then pivots to why we send a thief to prison to begin with:

1. To prevent them from doing further harm to society.
2. To discourage them from continuing to be a thief.
3. To give a sense of justice to those they have wronged.
4. To serve as an example to others in order to discourage them from pursuing the same path.
5. To help redeem them so they may re-enter society as a useful member.

Generally the prison term is tailored to fit the crime. Usually it is limited and subject to parole.

Compare the above with Hell. Would Hell:

1. Prevent the individual from causing harm to those in Heaven? → Inconceivable.
2. Discourage the individual from continuing to sin? → Hardly, since their term is eternal.
3. Give a sense of justice to those they have wronged? → Who would be so petty that, once having attained Heaven, they would refuse to feel satisfied until the one who had caused them a minor inconvenience on Earth was set to be tormented for eternity?
4. Serve as an example to others? → Perhaps, but since no one is ever updated about who is in Hell and what they are doing there (let alone if Hell even exists), it seems a poor means of showcasing examples.
5. Help to redeem anyone? → Impossible.

So seemingly Hell really has no true parallel with prison.

In the Catholic faith we believe no one goes to Hell for ignoracne, unless it is willful.

Would this not then suggest that the best defense against Hell is to remain blissfully ignorant about it? How many missionaries then have helped to catapult doubting souls into Hell?

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

I read into this parable something different: namely that the 5 were wise because they knew in advance that the bridegroom tended to be inconsiderate about his coming and going and the foolish, optimistic ones were merely unaware of how late such functions could run. I suppose that is the way with parables: they may mean whatever one wishes them to mean.

But why would not bringing extra measures of oil be considered lazy? Would it not have taken more effort to go to the market and return? Why were the other maidens not considered to be selfish for not sharing? Obviously they had enough oil if the bridegroom returned while the others were still shopping.

Those who make no effort to search for God and His commandments in this life are not excused for their ignorance; no more than I will be excused for speeding just because I didn’t bother to pay attention to the speed limit signs.

Which is fine if the limits are posted in your language: clearly and unambiguously.

Why do parents who love their children threaten them if they do something wrong? It’s because when the “do it because you love me” approach doesn’t work, then the “do it because if you don’t there will be consequences” should. Neither option is any proof that the parents do not love their children.

Might one not expect more from a perfect, omniscient, all-powerful God than that he behave exactly as would a limited, distracted, and deeply flawed human parent? Besides, parents punish in order to train their children to behave better in the future. God`s hellish response would be more like a parent spanking their child to death if the loving approach failed.

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

If I demand true affection from my child or else I will punish him, am I truly not forcing him to love me?

God cannot be indifferent to sin, since sin is opposed to His very nature which is Goodness itself. God’ is angry not just because you are rebelling agains Him, but because you are also hurting everyone else in the process.

In order for God to be angry, would he not have to cease being omniscient? Also, is God not seemingly indifferent to sin while we are about our business here on Earth? Why would God suddenly feel unable to continue being indifferent once the sinner has died and can do no further harm and pose no future threats?

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

Would this mean that so long as I remain agnostic and undecided I need never fear death?

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

Except, unlike any other test, this one apparently may end with one’s loving creator tormenting them for eternity because of a wrong answer.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

Now, let’s focus on part “B”.

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

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

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

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

It appears you have put a lot of thought into this, but what about other, more mundane, reasons for seeking a higher power:

1. An adult seeking a replacement for the parent who no longer shields them from life’s difficulties?
2. A strong, innate desire on the part of the seeker to find safety when confronted with the uncertainties of life and the certainties of death?
3. The desire to imagine a never ending life in the face of losing loved ones?
4. The strong, psychological urge to require that damage done to the one is restored in another life (in other words, if one cannot beat one’s oppressors in this life, it is tempting to image a future world where one is able to do so)?

But in order for him to do his secret work, he must grace us in a way that is proper to both his and our nature; The grace he gives must be in a benevolent manner (proper to his nature), and we must receive it in a manner proper to our own nature (freely). You may ask, why must we have free will? The answer is simple: benevolence is kindness that is administered freely; the image of God in virtue is what we are aiming for, and so to be in the image of this supernatural benevolence is to have free will.

Is it truly through God’s great benevolence that he provides us with the free will to choose to love him and gain eternal bliss or ignore him and gain eternal agony? Would not the choice, if it were truly free, be to love God and live with him or else reject him and live equally peacefully (perhaps on a world like this one where God merely lurks undetected)?

Why would a free choice have an individual faced with eternal torture for choosing the way God did not wish them to choose? How is that different from coercion and how does that differ from the free choice that the Syrian regime is offering its people right now?

 

[Pete_Auriol]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

Since we’ve free-will people can choose to remain apart from God not matter what. And if you deny that this can happen you’re saying that free-will isn’t really free which is a contradiction.

Besides, if no one can stick to their decision to reject God who says we will be able to stick to our decision to remain in heaven?

 

[Anthony_V]

It appears you have put a lot of thought into this, but what about other, more mundane, reasons for seeking a higher power:

1. An adult seeking a replacement for the parent who no longer shields them from life’s difficulties?
2. A strong, innate desire on the part of the seeker to find safety when confronted with the uncertainties of life and the certainties of death?
3. The desire to imagine a never ending life in the face of losing loved ones?
4. The strong, psychological urge to require that damage done to the one is restored in another life (in other words, if one cannot beat one’s oppressors in this life, it is tempting to image a future world where one is able to do so?

Sure! Those are all great ideas.

Is it truly through God’s great benevolence that he provides us with the free will to choose to love him and gain eternal bliss or ignore him and gain eternal agony? Would not the choice, if it were truly free, be to love God and live with him or else reject him and live equally peacefully (perhaps on a world like this one where God merely lurks undetected)?

Unfortunately, this is not possible (except in hard to reach circumstances). We are spiritual beings as well as physical. The physical part of our nature will decay, by the nature of the environment that part of us is created to live in. You and I both know that our bodies are contingent. The spirit, however, is of the utmost simplicity, and thus does not decay. Nor is it sensible in the manner that you and I can understand. It is the epitome of our upper rational appetites, which does not experience sensation as per sensible goods. It is eternal. So, when our bodies pass away, our spirit remains. We are sort of like angels incarnated (there are some other differences that distinguish Christian theology from Gnostic theology, but we won’t get into that right now). This spirit inclined to rational things. It is inclined to things that are good, because it is inclined to seek God. Now, Hell is not the fiery burning pit that we often imagine. It is a torment, yes, but a torment of the rational appetites, not the so much the sensible appetites (which have decayed). It is an eternal realization that we rejected the peace of beatific vision, and so we wallow in it for the rest of eternity; that we rejected the light, and the lack of light is darkness, so we have nowhere else to go, really. It really puts the PIT in self-pity. Furthermore, if we were to enter into Heaven while in that state of spiritual death, it would be far worse than in Hell. Imagine the even greater torment that the rational appetites would endure! The love of God would be eternally searing them in a crucible, even though they have eternally chosen that their impurities remain! So, Hell is not God’s punishment, it is his mercy. Better to be dark, cold, alone, and away from the ever present love of God than in a spiritual crucible in which your impurities are eternally burned up, but never purified. When in doubt, ask yourself what agony the “rational appetites” would think!

Why would a free choice have an individual faced with eternal torture for choosing the way God did not wish them to choose? How is that different from coercion and how does that differ from the free choice that the Syrian regime is offering its people right now?

There is a difference between punishment and consequence. God does not punish, he simply allows consequence. In this, it is important to remember that God, in his benevolence, gives every person enough grace to be in heaven with him, forever. The difference is on our part, not on God’s part.

 

[Cristiano]

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

I think that you are confusing reasonable with provable. Those arguments are not proof of the existence of God, even the latest Pope said so. However, I would like to know how many things can you prove in a system logically closed. As a scientist I can tell that we have practically no real proof for almost anything, You can prove things in mathematics but even there people feel free rely on conjectures quite a bit. Here I am talking about what we consider reasonable, circumstantial evidence is enough for a lot of people but not enough for others. That is what the Church calls reason based faith, and a lot of the educated faithful people consider St. Anselm argument really poor and they mention it only as an historical example.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sure! Those are all great ideas.\quote]

Thank you, but did you not use the reason you had given to explain the certainty of God? Which of the above suggestions would continue to require that certainty?

Unfortunately, this is not possible (except in hard to reach circumstances). We are spiritual beings as well as physical. The physical part of our nature will decay, by the nature of the environment that part of us is created to live in. You and I both know that our bodies are contingent. The spirit, however, is of the utmost simplicity, and thus does not decay. Nor is it sensible in the manner that you and I can understand. It is the epitome of our upper rational appetites, which does not experience sensation as per sensible goods. It is eternal. So, when our bodies pass away, our spirit remains. We are sort of like angels incarnated (there are some other differences that distinguish Christian theology from Gnostic theology, but we won’t get into that right now). This spirit inclined to rational things. It is inclined to things that are good, because it is inclined to seek God. Now, Hell is not the fiery burning pit that we often imagine. It is a torment, yes, but a torment of the rational appetites, not the so much the sensible appetites (which have decayed). It is an eternal realization that we rejected the peace of beatific vision, and so we wallow in it for the rest of eternity; that we rejected the light, and the lack of light is darkness, so we have nowhere else to go, really. It really puts the PIT in self-pity. Furthermore, if we were to enter into Heaven while in that state of spiritual death, it would be far

 

[Pete_Auriol]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

People freely decide to remain apart from god. If you say that for whatever reason choosing hell is impossible, then you’re saying the free-will isn’t free, which is a contradiction.
Besides, if we cannot stick to our decision of saying “no” to god, how can we stick to our decision to remain forever in heaven?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

People freely decide to remain apart from god. If you say that for whatever reason choosing hell is impossible, then you’re saying the free-will isn’t free, which is a contradiction.
Besides, if we cannot stick to our decision of saying “no” to god, how can we stick to our decision to remain forever in heaven?

Is it your position that it is at all good that individuals may remain in Hell for eternity?

If one should choose to live apart from God in this life, are they beset by unspeakable torment? If not, why is it impossible for a loving creator to merely re-create this life for those unwilling to dwell blissfully with him forever?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Perhaps, but being caught is never a certainty and a thief rarely steals in order to go to prison. So seemingly Hell really has no true parallel with prison.

The point of the analogy wasn’t to show a parallel between hell and prison but to show the nature of choice. When you chose to do something wrong you chose to suffer the consequences whether you want to or not. That was the point of the example, and while the consequences aren’t always guaranteed in this life they are always guaranteed in the next.

Would this not then suggest that the best defense against Hell is to remain blissfully ignorant about it? How many missionaries then have helped to catapult doubting souls into Hell?

No, and I have answered this and will not repeat myself.

I read into this parable something different: namely that the 5 were wise because they knew in advance that the bridegroom tended to be inconsiderate about his coming and going and the foolish, optimistic ones were merely unaware of how late such functions could run. I suppose that is the way with parables: they may mean whatever one wishes them to mean.

But why would not bringing extra measures of oil be considered lazy? Would it not have taken more effort to go to the market and return? Why were the other maidens not considered to be selfish for not sharing? Obviously they had enough oil if the bridegroom returned while the others were still shopping.

The 5 wise maidens are not considered selfish for not sharing because the oil represents their duty to love honor and serve God with their whole mind, body, and soul. The maids asking them to share weren’t doing so to be saved but rather corrupt the other 5 into doing the same thing they did which was to be unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom because they were too interested in themselves. The bridegroom is obviously Christ and when He comes to take you is obviously the hour of your death. Tell me do you know when the hour of death will come for you? NO, you don’t. The 5 wise virgins likewise didn’t know so they always lived their life prepared for the coming of Christ since they knew that Christ was their life.

Which is fine if the limits are posted in your language: clearly and unambiguously.

The truth is posted in every language; clearly and unabiguously.

Might one not expect more from a perfect, omniscient, all-powerful God than that he behave exactly as would a limited, distracted, and deeply flawed human parent? Besides, parents punish in order to train their children to behave better in the future. God`s hellish response would be more like a parent spanking their child to death if the loving approach failed.

Yes and no. Parent’s punish their children in the hopes that they will have a future and a child that does not listen to their parents can wined up not having a future at all. Good parents are good because they follow the example of God who is the Father of us all. Their imperfection is only a result of their limits. A parent who knows that their child would die if they went to a party would tell them the consequences of their actions would lead them to a terrible place if they do not listen to them. Parents tell their children this because God tell His children this.

If I demand true affection from my child or else I will punish him, am I truly not forcing him to love me?

Hell was not a place God made until the angels rebelled against Him. Your view is incorrect because God doesn’t force the consequence of Hell on to since you chose Hell by not listening to God; as explained above. God our Father knows what’s best for us and loves us with all of His being; however, this unconditional love God has for us is useless to us unless we want to be loved and allow Him to love us. God doesn’t send us to Hell for not loving Him but rather we send ourselves to Hell for not allowing God to love us.

In order for God to be angry, would he not have to cease being omniscient? Also, is God not seemingly indifferent to sin while we are about our business here on Earth? Why would God suddenly feel unable to continue being indifferent once the sinner has died and can do no further harm and pose no future threats?

You mean omnibenevolent? God is not seemingly indifferent to sin while we are about our business, He is tolerant of it. God cares that we sin and He administers His Justice perfectly in this life and after death.

Would this mean that so long as I remain agnostic and undecided I need never fear death?

Nope

Except, unlike any other test, this one apparently may end with one’s loving creator tormenting them for eternity because of a wrong answer.

In Hell the torment is all your own doing and the blame can only be on yourself. Your loving creator gave you sufficient time, grace, and knowledge to be in Heaven.

 

[Anthony_V]

Peace be with you!

Anthony V;9007542:

Sure! Those are all great ideas.\quote]
Thank you, but did you not use the reason you had given to explain the certainty of God? Which of the above suggestions would continue to require that certainty?

Well sure. They all boil down to the same concept: we lack internal harmony and completion without God, so we hopelessly seek things to fill that void.

Under what circumstance is is merciful to allow one’s opponent to wallow in eternal misery for any reason?

When it beats the alternative, as I proposed.

If God is all-powerful, is it not true that these certain consequences of which you speak are merely the certain requirements expressly desired by God?

How justified are our own transgressions against God? How fair is it that God would become incarnate and suffer arguably the worst imaginable death possible? God isn’t limited to what is subjectively fair. He always does things that are in our best interest. He gives every person enough grace to come to know him, love him, and serve him.
Love is Grace and Grace is free. Gratia. That’s not just on the part of God, it’s on our part! We must be disposed to receive grace by nature of free will, or else God wouldn’t be benevolent in creating us to hopelessly seek him! We are people with human dignity, not puppets. We are made in his image, which is the image of freedom, benevolence, and love. The only downside of love is when it is abused. The fault is not of God, the lover, but of us, the beloved who have abused that privelege.

Is it your opinion that he can neither create an alternative that removes the memory of his existence nor provide a means for even the most hardened sinner to eventually reach a place of harmony long enough to repent? What places such constraints on an all-powerful, infinite, genius, composed entirely of love?

He certainly could. But you said it yourself. He is love. His respects the freedom he gives us, and so he wouldn’t. He has lost far more, been betrayed more, and hated more than any of us ever have, simply because he wants us to spend eternity with him. And then after that, he became incarnated to suffer arguably one of the worst deaths possible so that we could still have the opportunity to be reconciled with him again. This is not a question of whether or not God is benevolent. Benevolence is love, as you so stated, and love is begotten of freedom. In order to have a loving relationship with God, we must be allowed to freely suffer consequences proper to our actions. Offenses against eternal benevolence naturally result in loss of that eternal benevolence. If our freedom wasn’t respected, we’d just be puppets, and that’s contrary to being in an intimate relationship with God! Again, he gives each person enough grace to turn to him. The problem is not on God’s part. It’s on ours.

If God does not punish, why is the Bible full of imagery that paints God as an angry judge whose vengeance is his alone and whose justice is beyond reproach? Why is he the one separating the wheat from the chaff, and the goats from the sheep? If God is merely a placid observer to the consequences of man’s own sin, why is he portrayed as taking such an active role in it?

How is the following quote from Luke explicable in light of your depiction of a peaceful, passive god who merely allows the chips to fall where they may?

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

[BIBLEDRB] Matthew 5:44-45[/BIBLEDRB]
Judgement is neither active nor passive. It doesn’t exist in time. We have to paint it one way or the other in order to express it in human terms. It is an instantaneous mutual understanding between the creature of the creator. In the case of a damned soul, it is a revelation of all the creature’s sin to himself, from the knowledge of the creator. It is a mutual understanding of “no, you are not my child. You have chosen otherwise”. In this way, It could be painted as active judgement.
In perspective of the instantaneous mutual understanding of one’s sinfulness, and the effects of such, it is passive. The timeless nature of judgment could also be seen as passive in regards to it being natural to the spirit when it has been evicted from the body.

Peace and joy be with you,
Anthony

 

[onemangang]

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

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

Well, according to the bible, you are resisting, so I believe it, over you!

As far as reality is concerned, without God, it is subjected to the individual to interpret it. I reject yours. Without God there is no ground, for anything. Logic, Reason, Knowledge, all philosophies apart from God fall into the infinite nothing. Friedrich Nietzsche layed it out pretty well in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None when he said his treatise on God is Dead

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

Again I believe God over you! I find it puzzling that Atheist try so hard to call foul on the “God they don’t believe in” and then want Justice.

Really, Justice, what is justice? Is that left up to the intellectual elite to decide? Or the super-man? Or the nihilist? Or the guy on the street who says “justice is all about judging man, you shouldn’t judge people?”

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

Knowledge : Epistemology without God being the ground there of, is completely illogical

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

Suicide doesn’t equal hell, there are conditions of the persons mental state and other factors that go into it.

You think Fr. Barron’s line is ridiculous, I think a world view apart from God is.

Justice without God is utter ridiculousness!

 

[Pete_Auriol]

Is it your position that it is at all good that individuals may remain in Hell for eternity?

If people go to hell, their lot is good insofar that they get to exercise their decision to remain apart from god without being coerced to be part of something they have no desire to be part of.

There might be other ways in that hell might be (partially) a good state, I do not know, I haven’t been to hell lately.

If one should choose to live apart from God in this life, are they beset by unspeakable torment? If not,]why is it impossible for a loving creator to merely re-create this life for those unwilling to dwell blissfully with him forever?]

Because actions and ideas have consequences, perhaps? Because life is a test, maybe?

Also don’t get confused when you use the term god is loving. God’s love is a freely given thing that we are not entitled to receive. Don’t assume that by “god is loving” it means that god is under obligation to serve creatures.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The point of the analogy wasn’t to show a parallel between hell and prison but to show the nature of choice. When you chose to do something wrong you chose to suffer the consequences whether you want to or not. That was the point of the example, and while the consequences aren’t always guaranteed in this life they are always guaranteed in the next.

But does this not return us to the justice of Hell in terms of torment? If Hell is not forced upon anyone, but is freely chosen as a logical consequence for actions done on Earth (in a realm apart from God) what purpose does it serve? If it serves none of the purposes of prison, and is merely a consequence (however logical), is it your view that the creator of such consequences is unable to alter its capacity for torment–or is he merely unwilling?

Put another way, why would a loving being, who truly loves and cares for every single person, be content to allow such suffering regardless of cause?

No, and I have answered this and will not repeat myself.

I apologize if I seem uninformed, but I do not recall this explanation. Regardless, I do not wish to weary you by forcing its repetition. I will reread this section, but if I remain confused is there an allowance for me to ask it again?

The 5 wise maidens are not considered selfish for not sharing because the oil represents their duty to love honor and serve God with their whole mind, body, and soul. The maids asking them to share weren’t doing so to be saved but rather corrupt the other 5 into doing the same thing they did which was to be unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom because they were too interested in themselves. The bridegroom is obviously Christ and when He comes to take you is obviously the hour of your death. Tell me do you know when the hour of death will come for you? NO, you don’t. The 5 wise virgins likewise didn’t know so they always lived their life prepared for the coming of Christ since they knew that Christ was their life.

This seems very well thought out and makes a degree of sense. Certainly it is more imaginative than a simpler reading which merely sees the 5 as being prepared and forward-thinking (wise) and the other 5 concerned only for the moment (foolish).

What is not quite clear is what it means regarding the 5 who went shopping for oil. If asking to borrow oil from the 5 wise was a form of corrupting the wise, was shopping supposed to signify the foolish seeking redemption? After all, did they not subsequently return with full measures of oil (only to find the gate closed)? Would this then suggest that even one who has repented may not gain Heaven under certain circumstances?

 

[sw85]

But does this not return us to the justice of Hell in terms of torment? If Hell is not forced upon anyone, but is freely chosen as a logical consequence for actions done on Earth (in a realm apart from God) what purpose does it serve? If it serves none of the purposes of prison, and is merely a consequence (however logical), is it your view that the creator of such consequences is unable to alter its capacity for torment–or is he merely unwilling?

Put another way, why would a loving being, who truly loves and cares for every single person, be content to allow such suffering regardless of cause?

Because God’s love demands that those who reject His love suffer:

Hell is the natural destination for those who reject salvation. Justice is simply the principle according to which each is given what he is due. Therefore justice demands that those who reject salvation go to Hell.

As it happens, I don’t think Hell has to be painful, at least not in a physical sense, in order to be Hell. Evil is its own punishment, after all, so it’s enough for Hell simply to be the place where evil is. But I think God’s love demands that it be painful in at least a spiritual sense, i.e., a place of grief. Love, after all, is an act of the will – willing what is best for another. What is best for another is determined by their nature. Our nature is such that we are rational beings subject to moral law and the consequences attendant on it. Therefore God’s love for us requires that we be punished when we do wrong. He loves us so much He will not permit us to enter eternity under the false and evil delusion that evil is anything other than what it is, or that it can triumph over good.

There is nothing so innately evil about torment. Pain is instrumental. Insofar as it awakens you to the fact of something’s badness, it is good – it’s good, after all, to feel pain when you place your hand on a hot stove, because it’s harming you. If you didn’t feel pain, your hand might be burned to a crisp.

Likewise, it is good for you to suffer when you reject God. If one is too ignorant and blinded by pride, prejudice, and unreason to correlate that suffering with the act of hatred and rebellion against God, well, that is one’s own problem. I see no reason why actions should be severed from consequences just to satisfy the disordered whims of reprobates.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The truth is posted in every language; clearly and unabiguously.

If the Bible is the source of truth, why is there not only one, clear, translation and interpretation of its texts? If multiple translations exist, each with its own forum of interpreters–and if each tale in the Bible might be understood in a variety of ways (such as our current divergence over the 5 foolish and 5 wise women parable)–is it accurate to claim that truth is posted clearly and unambiguously?

Yes and no. Parent’s punish their children in the hopes that they will have a future and a child that does not listen to their parents can wined up not having a future at all. Good parents are good because they follow the example of God who is the Father of us all. Their imperfection is only a result of their limits. A parent who knows that their child would die if they went to a party would tell them the consequences of their actions would lead them to a terrible place if they do not listen to them. Parents tell their children this because God tell His children this.

But would a parent whose child set out for the party headless of the warning, merely watch from an upstairs window and heave a sorrowful sigh? In essence, are there not some choices which merit overriding where love for the individual supersedes love for their ability to make choices?

Hell was not a place God made until the angels rebelled against Him.

But, given that God is omniscient, did he not foresee the fall of the angels from the very moment of their creation? Did he not foresee that he would make a Hell for them? Why then did he do nothing to deter them? Would not a casual tour of Hell have served to warn them off when the going began to get rough?

But aside from this, why use strong-man tactics at all? Could God not have been big enough to accept their rejection without rejecting them in turn? Could he not have sequestered them elsewhere in his infinite domain or merely had them reincarnated as kittens?

Your view is incorrect because God doesn’t force the consequence of Hell on to since you chose Hell by not listening to God; as explained above. God our Father knows what’s best for us and loves us with all of His being; however, this unconditional love God has for us is useless to us unless we want to be loved and allow Him to love us. God doesn’t send us to Hell for not loving Him but rather we send ourselves to Hell for not allowing God to love us.

If we truly send ourselves to Hell, why is so much Biblical imagery focused on God taking an active role as judge? Why is he the one separating the wheat from the chaff, and the goats from the sheep? Why does Luke claim he should be feared due to his ability to cast individuals into Hell?

Also, if individuals may merit Hell merely because they choose not to let God love them, might they later change their mind and be released from Hell? Alternately, may one in Heaven follow the path of some of the angels and choose to no longer allow God to love them in Heaven after a trillion, trillion years of being there? Would such a one immediately fall into Hell?

You mean omnibenevolent?

No, I meant omniscient. Is it not the case that in order for one to be angry they must first be startled? Is one truly angry when they observe that the weed they have been watching grow undisturbed for weeks eventually flowers and then goes to seed? Or are they more likely to be angry when they discover a weed gone to seed hidden away from their sight?

God is not seemingly indifferent to sin while we are about our business, He is tolerant of it. God cares that we sin and He administers His Justice perfectly in this life and after death.

Why would God’s tolerance end after death? Is God not supposed to be unconditional love? Why would his tolerance of our sins have a bearing on his love? Why would our decision not to love him have a bearing either? What type of parent permanently banishes a three-year old child who claims to no longer love them?

Nope

So how then is it determined for me to die if I have not yet made up my mind to love this or any other god? Is it possible for me to decide after death once I am able to spend some time with him and potentially evaluate with first-hand knowledge?

Have you decided if you love God?

In Hell the torment is all your own doing and the blame can only be on yourself. Your loving creator gave you sufficient time, grace, and knowledge to be in Heaven.

What if one deems they have not had sufficient time to so decide with finality? Is an extension given?

Also, what if one chooses not to torment themselves? Is such an option available? If such an option is not available, who or what makes it necessary that they torment themselves?

 

[Anthony_V]

But does this not return us to the justice of Hell in terms of torment? If Hell is not forced upon anyone, but is freely chosen as a logical consequence for actions done on Earth (in a realm apart from God) what purpose does it serve?

It serves no purpose rather than itself. It is fruitless because it exists apart from God. It does not rehabilitate persons, because there is no way to heal a broken soul, save God. God is not present in hell, obviously, otherwise it would not be hell.

If it serves none of the purposes of prison, and is merely a consequence (however logical), is it your view that the creator of such consequences is unable to alter its capacity for torment–or is he merely unwilling?

Put another way, why would a loving being, who truly loves and cares for every single person, be content to allow such suffering regardless of cause?

There certainly can be a cause-- of love. If he promises us free will, but saves us from hell without our permission at judgement, does he truly love us? Does a person who was forced into heaven really belong there? No, they don’t. They wouldn’t ever be able to love God. Remember what I said earlier? It is far better for a damned person to be damned to hell rather than heaven. They feel that happiness lies elsewhere, and have pursued something that’s not there. Their soul is set on seeking their fruitless pleasure. Is God heartbroken over that? Absolutely. But will he respect our decision by recognizing that he made us in his own image of love, which is freedom? For sure.

Consider it like this: At the end of our lives, God will give us whatever we love the most. If it is a love of God, then it shall be so. If it a love of anything else, then we shall be given it. It will make us insatiable for the rest of eternity, because God alone is ultimately our fulfillment.

Also, I did a poor job of replying to you earlier insofar as tagging goes. Maybe you didn’t see it because I hadn’t properly set up the quote box with your name in it.

 

[MrSylvester]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand?

God doesn’t simply punish people for what they don’t understand. Pius IX said that the invincibly ignorant can’t go to hell and so did Pius XII. However, people who actually have access to material showing them the true faith are condemned not only because of their own sins but because they refuse to see the true Catholic faith. How can you accept a religion like Angliganism if it was made up by one of the biggest jerks in history? How can you accept Islam if it cam 300 years after the Bible was compiled and after Jesus came? You can’t say Muhammeds interpretation of Jesus is correct when Jesus and His Church thaught something completely diffirent now can you? Can ou honestly stay in that religion after seeing all this evidence against it? Also, how can an atheist expect to enter heaven if He rejects God and Mary? Thats like saying disowning your own mother and father and yet expecting to inherit their stuff after they die.

Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed?

This invokes the myth that the Catholic rleigion teaches blind faith. If it did, we wouldn’t force you to go six months in RCIA, we wouldn’t suggest reading theological books like those of Saint Alphonsus Maria Ligouri or Thomas Aquinas and we certainly wouldn’t want there to be an explicit desire to be Baptized. Speaking of baptism, who introduced Baptism? Who found the Catholic Church? Who provided many of the morals we have today? Jesus. You can’t say that Christianity corrupted the teachings of Jesus because there is no evidence outside the Bible showing that Paul broke away from Jesus’s Christianity and invented his own. If Paul invented Christianity, how are we sure then of what Jesus really thought? Rather, history proves that the Catholic Church and the early Christians beleived Jesus to be God, that if the Gospels are historically correct, then they are proof that Jesus is God and that He Himself thaught this.

So we have evidence to believe in one religion over the others. True most Catholics today aren’t devout and should be characterized as cafeteria Catholics but for those who are devout, they don’t bleeive in their faith simply because they beleive the faith of their parents, they believe it because for their own reasons.

Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

If there were no hell and no punishment, whats to prevent us from committing every evil we want? If we killed a baby yet don’t suffer the repercussions of going to hell, how can that be called justice?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Peace be with you!
Jelrak TB;9009275:

Well sure. They all boil down to the same concept: we lack internal harmony and completion without God, so we hopelessly seek things to fill that void.

So if one feels any sort of lack, they are essentially feeling a lack of God?

How are you certain that this is the case and not merely the actual lacks that are stated on the surface? Is one’s craving for an extra helping of desert truly indicative that there is a pie-shaped hole in their heart where God is missing?

When it beats the alternative, as I proposed.

It beats the alternative where one does not allow one’s opponent to wallow in misery? How is that possible?

How justified are our own transgressions against God? How fair is it that God would become incarnate and suffer arguably the worst imaginable death possible?

As for God’s role in his own death, how are we to even consider such a thing? For did it not remain within God’s power to prevent it? Did God not predict the very thing and proceed willingly to it? Is not God implicitly responsible for his own death in such a case?

How fair is the concept that any, other than those who were there, should bear the guilt of such a death? How fair is the concept that the fall of mankind is fostered upon all due to the actions of two?

Indeed, how fair were the deaths of all of the first-born in Egypt due to the singular stubbornness of Pharaoh?

God isn’t limited to what is subjectively fair

. He always does things that are in our best interest. He gives every person enough grace to come to know him, love him, and serve him.
Love is Grace and Grace is free. Gratia. That’s not just on the part of God, it’s on our part! We must be disposed to receive grace by nature of free will, or else God wouldn’t be benevolent in creating us to hopelessly seek him! We are people with human dignity, not puppets. We are made in his image, which is the image of freedom, benevolence, and love. The only downside of love is when it is abused. The fault is not of God, the lover, but of us, the beloved who have abused that privelege.

Would you value a lover who claimed to set you free in such a manner–to freely choose them or not–but with the understanding that should you not choose them you would be evicted from your home and made to live out your days on the streets?

He certainly could. But you said it yourself. He is love. His respects the freedom he gives us, and so he wouldn’t. He has lost far more, been betrayed more, and hated more than any of us ever have, simply because he wants us to spend eternity with him.

Is God able to suffer? More to the point, is mankind able to cause God pain?

And then after that, he became incarnated to suffer arguably one of the worst deaths possible so that we could still have the opportunity to be reconciled with him again. This is not a question of whether or not God is benevolent. Benevolence is love, as you so stated, and love is begotten of freedom.

In order for love to be true, does it not require the ability to be freely given by both parties? Free of dire consequence should it be withheld? What tender-hearted young man approaches the girl he has been courting and offers her the free choice to either marry him or be banished from his surroundings to suffer in torment?

In order to have a loving relationship with God, we must be allowed to freely suffer consequences proper to our actions. Offenses against eternal benevolence naturally result in loss of that eternal benevolence. If our freedom wasn’t respected, we’d just be puppets, and that’s contrary to being in an intimate relationship with God! Again, he gives each person enough grace to turn to him. The problem is not on God’s part. It’s on ours.

Is the freedom of one who does not love God being respected if she also does not wish to reside in Hell?

[BIBLEDRB] Matthew 5:44-45[/BIBLEDRB]
Judgement is neither active nor passive. It doesn’t exist in time.

If it does not reside in time, does this suggest that all of the judging, as well as its results, have always existed? If so, would this suggest that all who are to merit Heaven are, in fact, already there?

We have to paint it one way or the other in order to express it in human terms. It is an instantaneous mutual understanding between the creature of the creator. In the case of a damned soul, it is a revelation of all the creature’s sin to himself, from the knowledge of the creator. It is a mutual understanding of "no, you are not my child.

Would a loving parent ever find it conceivable to face a child and reject him in such a way?

You have chosen otherwise". In this way, It could be painted as active judgement.
In perspective of the instantaneous mutual understanding of one’s sinfulness, and the effects of such, it is passive. The timeless nature of judgment could also be seen as passive in regards to it being natural to the spirit when it has been evicted from the body.

Peace and joy be with you,
Anthony

And with you. Thank you for your insights.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If people go to hell, their lot is good insofar that they get to exercise their decision to remain apart from god without being coerced to be part of something they have no desire to be part of.

There might be other ways in that hell might be (partially) a good state, I do not know, I haven’t been to hell lately.

Fair enough.

Because actions and ideas have consequences, perhaps? Because life is a test, maybe?

Also don’t get confused when you use the term god is loving. God’s love is a freely given thing that we are not entitled to receive. Don’t assume that by “god is loving” it means that god is under obligation to serve creatures.

Is it truly serving your dog to resist the urge to batter it repeatedly when it disobeys you?

Thank you for taking the time to respond.