Explain the justice of hell.

[CarolVP]

Well if all he wanted was beings that would praise him, why would this not be a better option, as then he wouldn’t send most of us to hell for arbitrarily not thinking the right religion is true? Would it not be better for the people in hell, (let alone the people in heaven that will apparently somehow not care about the people in hell), if nobody was created if it followed that many would go to hell forever? Did god really need beings to worship him so badly that he was willing to torture many forever? That’s pretty sick.

(I wish that I could ‘pause’ the conversation while I was unable to take part. I keep missing huge swathes of it.)

God sends no one to hell. Those in hell have freely chosen it. They have chosen to separate themselves from God forever. They have chosen by their own, deliberate actions.

This bizarre idea, repeated ad nauseum, that God takes some lascivious delight in torturing poor, deluded souls who were born somewhere in place and time without any real understanding of how to reach Heaven, and who, if they had really realised that God existed, and if they really understood how important it was to be good, and to worship God, and all of that, that they wouldn’t have rejected Him to the end…, and it’s all God’s fault. He should have made it clearer that He existed. He should have made the differences between right and wrong much more obvious. He certainly has no right to torture them in eternity.

This idea is simply wrong. Every person has more than enough opportunities to make correct choices. Every person must act on his/her own conscientious understanding and beliefs. Every person must search for truth, and act accordingly.

The bottom line is this: Only God fully understands each and every person’s intentions when particular actions are performed. The dull-witted can’t possibly be judged as sternly as those with high intelligence. (Heaven is likely to be bursting with souls who are dull-witted, but loving.) Those who have had no opportunity, whatsoever, to recognise who God is, are to be judged by their actions relative to their knowledge.

Then, there is Purgatory - the state of purification. None of us live up to the greatest love of God. None of us do everything that we ought (I have a pile of dishes which I should be tackling at this very moment, for instance.) Few of us die loving God, and our neighbour, the way that we should. Heaven is for those who love God perfectly. This is why there has to be a Purgatory. If there weren’t, then we would all be in a sorry state, and very few would get to Heaven.

A whole life of sin can be repented of at the last moment before death. Think of someone like Hitler. If he died repentant, then he could get to Heaven. However, the extent of his sins would mean that his perfection of love for God would be horrendously inadequate. This is why there is Purgatory. Such a soul would need almost an eternity of purification to be fit for Heaven. Yet, it is possible.

So, if an exceedingly sinful person can repent just before the end of life, so too can we all. Only God can judge, and He judges according to what we have been given - health, wealth, intelligence, opportunity, et c.

It is simply pointless describing what we don’t actually believe about God, and Hell, and then ridiculing it.

 

[minkymurph]

The rich man is in Hell? Oh ouch!!! Well, I guess I need to refresh my bible studies. Correct me if I’m wrong but before Jesus came to save us, most people who died were in “Hell.” Jesus descended to hell when he died to save and redeemed everyone except for Satan. Satan was the only one in Hell at that moment. Jesus rose again on the third day taken with him everyone except for Satan and opened Heaven. Purgatory was created to purify everyone before entering heaven. This is what I got out of my RCIA class. Is this teaching correct?

There are many different interpretations of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Firstly, it is a parable. The Rich Man and Lazarus may not be people. Personally, I don’t think they are.

You ask if this teaching is correct? I don’t know. I’ve never heard it before. However, I would question it because how can we know no one was left in Hell except for Satan? How do we know Jesus took everyone in Hell straight to Heaven? Why did they not have to be purified? Do we know Purgatory was created?

 

[minkymurph]

It is simply pointless describing what we don’t actually believe about God, and Hell, and then ridiculing it.

Here here.

It never ceases to amaze me how often we get criticized for what we don’t believe.

Has it not also been argued that lack of belief is does not involve a choice, it’s something one can’t help? In which case, we can’t be criticized because we are not responsible.

 

[jmvizanko]

Has it not also been argued that lack of belief is does not involve a choice, it’s something one can’t help? In which case, we can’t be criticized because we are not responsible.

I’m not criticizing anyone personally, I’m putting forward arguments against what you believe. Even if you can’t choose what you think is true, that doesn’t mean that being presented with some group of arguments or facts can’t change your mind. In much the same way you think it is beneficial to spread the gospels, I think it is beneficial to spread the reasons why they are false, regardless of whether or not there is choice in accepting either side.

 

[CarolVP]

Is it not possible that, much as a truly great poet might require a source of suffering from which to draw in order to provide such deep prose, a soul in suffering is a joy for God to behold? If so, might not Heaven be a locale of great privation rather than abundance?

(As people can see, I still haven’t worked out how to do multiple, or selection, quotes.)

There seems to be a bit of a muddle as to what God delights in, and what He permits. God delights in those who love Him, and those who love God, will, by extension, love others. God also permits suffering, and while He doesn’t specifically will that people commit sins, He alone is able to bring goodness from the consequences. As someone else mentioned, the view must always be regarding Heaven or Hell. God’s view is not ours. We see things from our own points of view, but God sees all in all. God views all in the context of eternity.

God’s will (as someone else has probably mentioned, perhaps multiple times) is to be understood as His permissive will and His deliberate will (can’t think of the right word for the second one). We know that evil exists, and that God exists, and we must, therefore, infer that God permits some evil. God has made us free, so there will always be people who abuse this freedom and commit sin. This has consequences, always. The consequences are visited upon other people, generally, and also upon the individual self. Habitual sin leads to a morally-corrupt character.

A perfect example of the permissive will of God is the recent news item of a 7-month-old unborn baby being killed in China. The mother was forced to have an abortion, and the child was placed, in pieces, next to the poor grieving woman. The father took a photo of mother and child, and the news has spread around the world. People are outraged, and so are the Chinese authorities. Unfortunately, many of them are simply horrified that China forces women to have abortions. How dare they, when abortion should be a “free choice”!!! The sad fact is that China has been doing this for decades. Another sad fact is that people who oppose this incident are quite content that millions of other children are ripped to shreds for the crime of being unborn, or the wrong gender, or for being disabled, or suspected of being disabled. Western nations also give funding to support abortion industries in third world countries. At last, the whole western world can see the horror and injustice of abortion for what it is. Many will close their eyes to the truth, of course, but some may not. The point is that the evil has been exposed in this one little event, and some hearts may be stirred into supporting the rights of the unborn.

Does God rejoice at the suffering of that little unborn one, or of the child’s parents? Not at all. Those who perpetrated this, and all other atrocities, have done so of their own free wills. They are disobeying God’s precepts when they do so. Perhaps, at last, however, the truth is being exposed, and some change may occur.

God can bring justice to those who commit (and allow) these crimes against humanity. God alone can metre out exactly the right amount of ‘punishment’ for such sins. The perpetrators will have to pay, and atone, for what they have done, considered also in the measure to which they were culpable.

A suffering soul is not a joy for God to delight it. A suffering soul has an opportunity to reach out to God. A suffering soul may offer the sufferings in atonement for his/her own sins, or else the sins of others. Suffering is but one part of the journey towards Heaven. Heaven - the union with God in love forever - is the goal, and suffering is part of the struggle towards that goal. Perseverance, faithfulness, righteousness, and all the rest, are part of what we all need to love and serve God fully.

 

[CarolVP]

• What account are you referencing?
• Whereby Satan refused to serve based on the premise of mankind’s alleged superiority.
• I’m not familiar with this account. Where did you get it?

There are various theories as to why Lucifer decided to oppose God. I have heard, vaguely, of one where some of the Angels were envious of the fact that members of mankind were to be given both bodies and souls. Exactly why they would be envious of this is hard to ascertain.

Others have proposed that the Angels were shown the proposed plan of Salvation, should mankind Fall. Lucifer didn’t like the plan, and so he rebelled.

I think that this type of theorising is actually quite unnecessary, and totally irrelevant. Lucifer sinned from pride, as do we all. He opposed God’s will in preference to his own. He had all that he needed, and wasn’t content.

 

[paul_c]

The rich man is in Hell? Oh ouch!!! Well, I guess I need to refresh my bible studies. Correct me if I’m wrong but before Jesus came to save us, most people who died were in “Hell.” Jesus descended to hell when he died to save and redeemed everyone except for Satan. Satan was the only one in Hell at that moment. Jesus rose again on the third day taken with him everyone except for Satan and opened Heaven. Purgatory was created to purify everyone before entering heaven. This is what I got out of my RCIA class. Is this teaching correct?

No, that’s not entirely correct. Jesus descended to Hell to save the righteous dead, not everyone but Satan. The church has never taught that everyone gets to heaven, which is what you are implying here. this is the section of the Catholic Catechism that relates to this reading: scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p1.htm

The catholic teaching on salvation, in short is this. You enter the state of grace through baptism, which is a choice on the part of the individual and a free gift of God… YOu stay in the state of grace by doing God’s will for you, which is to love Him and your neighbor according to the gifts you have been given. You fall from the state of grace through mortal sin, which is a deliberate turning from God on something of grave matter. You can return to grace through sacramental confession. Those that die in the state of grace will eventually go to heaven. But if they still have the tendency to sin, that will be purged from them in Purgatory prior to entering heaven. All those souls in Purgatory, by the way, will eventually get to heaven. Note, all the paths to grace involve free will choice, as do the paths to condemnation.

 

[paul_c]

• What account are you referencing?
• Whereby Satan refused to serve based on the premise of mankind’s alleged superiority.
• I’m not familiar with this account. Where did you get it?

There are various theories as to why Lucifer decided to oppose God. I have heard, vaguely, of one where some of the Angels were envious of the fact that members of mankind were to be given both bodies and souls. Exactly why

 

[paul_c]

I’m not criticizing anyone personally, I’m putting forward arguments against what you believe. Even if you can’t choose what you think is true, that doesn’t mean that being presented with some group of arguments or facts can’t change your mind. In much the same way you think it is beneficial to spread the gospels, I think it is beneficial to spread the reasons why they are false, regardless of whether or not there is choice in accepting either side.

you are contradicting your own statement in the same sentence. If you can change your mind about what is true, then surely you have the power to decide what you think is true from the beginning.

As for showing why the gospel is false, lets have at it. All I’ve seen from you so far are unsubstantiated claims that the gospels are false. Give us details and we can address them.

 

[CarolVP]

In much the same way you think it is beneficial to spread the gospels, I think it is beneficial to spread the reasons why they are false, regardless of whether or not there is choice in accepting either side.

“…the reasons why they are false…” My goodness!!! You certainly have arrogated to yourself a superior level of infallibility. Surely, in the interests of truth and justice, you should have said , “if they are false, the reasons need to be spread…”

You are assuming something that you actually need to prove. It is absolutely true that **if **the gospels are false, then they need to be exposed. What you need to do is actually prove that they are false. Simply stating that they are is insufficient. Richard Dawkins has stated that Christianity was begun by [St] Paul. He is absolutely wrong, and it can be proven, but he continues with the lie.

I am not going to make any attempt to prove that the Gospels are accurate historical documents, but I have investigated sufficiently to trust, to my own satisfaction, that they are. The miracles which have been wrought within the Catholic Church are sufficient for me to believe that the Catholic Church is of God. This firm belief strengthens my trust in the Church for what she teaches on Faith and Morals. Quite apart from the strictly religious realm, the Catholic Church speaks common sense on so many issues. The document Humanae Vitae, so much maligned by those with more worldly interests, both back then and now, has been proven to be an accurate prediction of the state of the world now that the full consequences of free access to contraception has been played out. More abortions, not fewer, and much more marriage and family breakdown. The social consequences have been catastrophic.

 

[CarolVP]

This is covered in the catechism of the Church:scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#II

Thanks for this reference, Paul. I see that the CCC doesn’t indulge in theorising, either. Good.

I’d still like to know where the original questioner got the information about man’s alleged superiority.

 

[paul_c]

This is covered in the catechism of the Church:scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#II

Thanks for this reference, Paul. I see that the CCC doesn’t indulge in theorising, either. Good.

I’d still like to know where the original questioner got the information about man’s alleged superiority.

I asked him a week ago and he never responded.

 

[CarolVP]

Is it not the position of the Mormon Church that the original message of Jesus was corrupted fairly early on and so their establishment merely returns Christianity to its proper roots?

Do not the Orthodox claim that the Roman Rite corrupted the original intent of Episcopal equality and so consider their establishment to carry on in the proper original spirit of Jesus’ message?

Do not the Muslims consider that, as with Judaism, God has relinquished his blessings from Christianity and bestowed it upon them?

So is it understandable why one might feel at times lost, even among only the four claims so far discussed?

(Whoever you are, Jelrak TB, I am incredibly and continually impressed with your decency and respect for those of us with religious views. That would go for others, too, since this site is not replete with the ridicule and obscenities towards us that are on other ‘religious’ sites.)

If one accepts that there is a God, and that He is a personal and loving God, and that God the Son became man, and dwelt amongst us, and that He began a Church which is still in existence today, then one has to discern which one of the few claimants is the true one. If we accept the Gospels as being accurate accounts of what Jesus actually said, He said that the Church which He would establish would need to shine. He promised that His Church would not fail,and that it would be in existence until the end of time. No one can be led by a ‘light under a bushel’. No one can be led by a Church which has failed to teach. No one can be expected to follow a Church which has gone underground, or else has had Christ’s promise removed from it.

The Church needs to be united in belief. The Church needs to have existed since Jesus started it, and needs to have been visible in all of that time. Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world, and the Church, therefore, must be universal. The only Church which fulfils all of the requirements mentioned is the Catholic Church. Are its members sinful? Too right they are. Have its member made mistakes? Absolutely. But, has the Catholic Church been visible, and have its teachings been constant and available for study, since the founding by Jesus Christ? Yes. The Anglican, Cardinal Newman found this out. He studied the origins of Catholicism, working backwards, from his own time to Christ. He was writing a thesis on where the Catholic Church was corrupted and fell away from what Jesus actually taught. He became a Catholic, because he couldn’t prove his thesis.

While both the Eastern and Western arms of the one true Church existed from the beginning, the Eastern arm broke away from the Western, and has since become nationalistic - Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, et c.

The Mormons were started by one Joseph Smith. He may have claimed that the Church was corrupted for centuries, but, since a “corrupted” Church cannot shine out and expect to lead people to Heaven, Jesus’ promise to be with the true Church had to have been pretty meaningless, as was His command to ‘shine’. Ergo, either Joseph Smith was right, or Jesus was.

The Muslim claims are also wrong: 1. Jesus promised to be with His Church till the end of time. 2. Jesus promised that His Church would last until the end of time. 3. If Jesus is/was God, His commands and promises would be rendered pretty meaningless, if He were then to relinquish His blessing and sanctions. 4. Islam is a world religion begun in war and bloodshed. The Prophet himself went into many battles. This contrasts quite starkly with the founder of Christianity.

 

[Jehannette]

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?

You have absolutely no right to question what the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, does or does not do.

 

[epan]

To you is punishment, to God it is respecting the free will of the people that reject Him. If you do not accept God it is your choice, just be aware that by doing that you also reject everything that comes with God.

You are talking about faith and certainty. How many of your decisions in life are based on certainty? I can tell you that most, if probably not all, of my decisions are based on the reasonable belief that something specific will happen depending on my choices but I have zero certainty that those consequences will happen.

No. Respecting free will would be allowing people to do what they want without consequence. Disrespecting free will is saying, “Do what you want, but if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will douse you in gasoline and strike a match.”

Please don’t call the threat of Hell an example of the promotion of free will.

Do you think that when a gunman threatens a cashier, that the cashier is exercising free will when the money is handed over?

 

[Jehannette]

No. Respecting free will would be allowing people to do what they want without consequence. Disrespecting free will is saying, “Do what you want, but if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will douse you in gasoline and strike a match.”

Please don’t call the threat of Hell an example of the promotion of free will.

Do you think that when a gunman threatens a cashier, that the cashier is exercising free will when the money is handed over?

“Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Romans 9:21)

You have no “right” to Heaven, which means that God can punish you in Hell in any manner that He wishes.

 

[paul_c]

No. Respecting free will would be allowing people to do what they want without consequence. Disrespecting free will is saying, “Do what you want, but if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will douse you in gasoline and strike a match.”

Please don’t call the threat of Hell an example of the promotion of free will.

Do you think that when a gunman threatens a cashier, that the cashier is exercising free will when the money is handed over?

Nothing we do in this world or the next is without consequence. Free will is the ability to decide what consequence we want. We are free to choose to do something against God for which the consequence is Hell. But we are also free to choose to instead do something that corresponds with god’s will instead, for which the consequence is heaven. This is true free will.

The ability to do things that don’t matter is not free will and if everything you did didn’t matter, you would find you soon lost interest in it.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not criticizing anyone personally, I’m putting forward arguments against what you believe. Even if you can’t choose what you think is true, that doesn’t mean that being presented with some group of arguments or facts can’t change your mind. In much the same way you think it is beneficial to spread the gospels, I think it is beneficial to spread the reasons why they are false, regardless of whether or not there is choice in accepting either side.

Certainly, I am a great believer in freedom of expression, and have no problem with people presenting arguments to support their point of view. That to me, is not in issue.

The first issue is if you’re going to present arguments against what someone believes, it is first necessary to know what they believe. Presenting arguments or facts for the purpose of changing someone’s mind serves no purpose if it’s not what that someone believes in first place. Therefore, the point I was attempting to make was yes, present arguments against what someone believes - but stick to what they believe, not what they don’t. I say this because when engaged in debate with some atheists they often do this - debate beliefs you don’t actually hold - and I fail to see how this is beneficial.

The second issue is if one presents arguments against what someone believes, or doesn’t as the case may be, one must be prepared to handle counter-arguments. In relation to choice, was one of the arguments you presented not believing something does not require making a choice? The counter-argument I presented was it does. If you do not agree with this, fine and yes, you are entitled to present counter-arguments to that. However, your post suggests you are now saying choice isn’t really relevant, which I don’t think is a good answer. I think it’s ducking the question. However, in fairness I may be misinterpreting you’re meaning. Am I?

I would also argue if there is no choice involved on either side we are just engaging in a mindless robotic debate. In addition, more than one atheist has told me they have the freedom to choose what to believe, whereas I don’t. In other words, I get the impression they pride themselves on their ability to choose.

 

[Jehannette]

You have no “right” to Heaven, which means that God can punish you in Hell in any manner that He wishes.

No, Paul, the consequences of having been conceived is Hell:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pain. (Council of Florence)

 

[epan]

You have no “right” to Heaven, which means that God can punish you in Hell in any manner that He wishes.

Sorry. Your statement is logically inconsistent. Can you explain in more sensible terms what you are trying to say?