Explain the justice of hell.

[minkymurph]

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?

Coming a bit late to this thread and apologies in advance if I say something that has been said before, and for not reading all the replies.

You quite rightly elude to the problem of the ‘choice’ element. To explain, if you are given a choice of believing in God or not believing in God, but punished for not believing, that is not a true choice. Telling someone they are free to make a choice but there are serious consequences for making the wrong one means there is really no choice to be made if you follow me.

People very often do believe what their parents tell them. My mother used to say, ‘you’re religion is an accident of birth.’ Certainly, there are people who convert to other faiths, there are exceptions to every rule, but as a high percentage of people do tend to stay in the faith they were brought up in as they have been raised to believe it is the right one. Someone once asked me, ‘Why Jesus? Why not Mohammed or a Hindu guru or Tibetan monk?’ If I had been raised Muslim, or Hindu would I believe in Jesus? The honest answer would have to be I don’t know.

As far as hell goes, it hinges on belief in the immortal soul. If we believe we have an immortal soul, then we are compelled to believe in some eternal destiny of the soul. In the Christian world that is believed to be heaven or hell. Hell means many different things to many different people. Some believe it is a literal fire, others don’t. I would say we cannot know what the physical state of hell is because we do not know what the physical make-up of the soul is. However, what is universally believed in the Christian world is the state of hell is eternal separation from God. My reasoning on it would be - and I stress it is a personal view - eternal separation is not imposed on those who do not want to be separated from God eternally, it is given to those who have that desire - those who have no desire to be with God eternally right to the moment of death, and perhaps beyond. I would reason that judgement involves more than lack of faith or believe, but outright rejection of God. Lack of belief is not necessarily outright rejection. I would also reason that judgement concerning our final destiny does not rest on one thing, and one thing alone.
If a person lacks faith or believe it is known only onto God why, and how culpable they are as individuals for that lack of faith or belief. I would reason that a person who totally rejects God is one who knows not only that he exists, but many things we are taught about God are true.

Such people are known only onto God. We cannot presume to know how God will ultimately judge all of us. God reserves judgement for Himself and Himself alone. Humans were never given the authority to decide the final destiny of others. One final note: belief in God and living in accordance with how He asked us to live is about more than avoiding hell.

 

[Searcher360]

I understand that, and I have zero fear for whatever lays beyond death, which I think is probably just annihilation like you say. But I’m asking the people that DO believe in hell, for the reasons they have or can think of for why it makes any sense.

And if the god of Christianity exists, then hell is something he created, therefore it is part of “the reality of god.” And if hell is ridiculous for a good and intelligent god to do, then its a good reason to dismiss the “reality” of that god.

I note with great interest your genuine attempts to engage in real debate. I am not an atheist, but do eschew organized religion as I feel the overwhelmingly man-made components and deliberate efforts to discourage independent thought are counter to what God would really want. I look with amusement as the same certainty some express here as ancient Greeks, Egyptians and prehistoric people no doubt did. Modern muslims and Hindus and more all make the same claims of certainty, but instilling a fear of eternal torment really takes the cake for mind control.

I cannot imagine God punishing people who think, debate, discuss, but in the end want to be with him and one with the universe. Does God want people coming to him willingly or terrified, thought avoiding sheep? While I am doubting, why would God go to all the trouble of having a “son” et al when a more direct “I am Lord” approach is more logical?

 

[jmvizanko]

I note with great interest your genuine attempts to engage in real debate.

The best discussions are with people you disagree with. Maybe that’s why I married a Protestant…

I am not an atheist, but do eschew organized religion as** I feel the overwhelmingly man-made components and deliberate efforts to discourage independent thought are counter to what God would really want.**

I couldn’t agree more. I firmly believe everything should be open to question. Though to be fair, I’m sure (or at least I certainly hope) that there are people that indoctrinate their children, yet still teach them to think critically and question everything including authority and tradition.

instilling a fear of eternal torment really takes the cake for mind control.

Well considering there is no worse threat, yeah, I’d say it gets every crumb of that cake.

I cannot imagine God punishing people who think, debate, discuss, but in the end want to be with him and one with the universe. Does God want people coming to him willingly or terrified, thought avoiding sheep? While I am doubting, why would God go to all the trouble of having a “son” et al when a more direct “I am Lord” approach is more logical?

Which is precisely why the only sort of god I can imagine is more of the deist formulation, that he is isolated or separated or doesn’t even care about life on this rock. If a god honestly cares about us and “can” interfere with our existence, it doesn’t make any sense that the only way I can find salvation is either from trusting a bunch of people from one of many religions, or by finding him in what I consider a ridiculous ancient book. Let alone him not preventing or curing children who die from excruciatingly painful diseases…

 

[sw85]

I cannot imagine God punishing people who think, debate, discuss, but in the end want to be with him and one with the universe. Does God want people coming to him willingly or terrified, thought avoiding sheep? While I am doubting, why would God go to all the trouble of having a “son” et al when a more direct “I am Lord” approach is more logical?

Have you considered that the problem is simply a lack of imagination on your part?

Seriously, when I use the phrase “I can’t imagine…” it’s because I literally cannot conceive of something. Are you saying you cannot conceive of any possible way to reconcile Hell with God’s goodness? Because plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic – plenty. It convinced me, surely it can convince you.

For myself, I don’t imagine God cares why people come to Him, only that they do, eventually, come to Him. I’m sure He would prefer people love Him as a father, but He’ll settle for people fearing Him as lord and king.

Which is precisely why the only sort of god I can imagine is more of the deist formulation, that he is isolated or separated or doesn’t even care about life on this rock. If a god honestly cares about us and “can” interfere with our existence, it doesn’t make any sense that the only way I can find salvation is either from trusting a bunch of people from one of many religions, or by finding him in what I consider a ridiculous ancient book. Let alone him not preventing or curing children who die from excruciatingly painful diseases…

The problem is that such a God is an ontological impossibility. God is all-good as a matter of metaphysical necessity, and therefore all-loving: He wills what is best for His creation, and therefore must (again, as a matter of metaphysical necessity) ordain events in order to maximize the good of creation.

I gather from your posts you are perhaps not familiar with our conception of God. We don’t say God is all-good because we hope He is, but because He actually is. We didn’t even need Him to tell us this: Plato and Aristotle figured it out centuries before Christ and they had, to my knowledge, no contact with the Jews.

You might consider reading Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition” or “Aquinas” for a perfectly rational case for the existence of God.

 

[Searcher360]

Have you considered that the problem is simply a lack of imagination on your part?

Seriously, when I use the phrase “I can’t imagine…” it’s because I literally cannot conceive of something. Are you saying you cannot conceive of any possible way to reconcile Hell with God’s goodness? Because plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic – plenty. It convinced me, surely it can convince you.

**Oh, I don’t doubt the existence of God. I do seriously doubt man made constructs and suppositions based on what is often 3rd hand (at best) accounts and writings made with long forgotten or lost political and/or personal motives. And, I used the phrase “I can’t imagine” quite deliberately. I cannot imagine God acting as a scorned teenage girl throwing a hissy fit because mortal men make errors despite good intent. I literally cannot reconcile Hell with God’s goodness except in the rarest of circumstances and due to deliberate, premeditated evil and outright rejection of all that is good. Hitler, for example, comes to mind. But, I’m not convinced that all violence is automatically damning. The Maori, for example, were an isolated people trained from birth to value warfare and fighting, something alien to me except as a last resort. **

 

[Anthony_V]

Is God then unaware of what occurs inside of Hell? If so, did Jesus hold such ignorance while preaching on the subject?

Allow me to rephrase in a more “politically correct” manner. God does not exert his benevolence on a creature who has eternally rejected it. The matter of existence, as per the quality, certainly does exist apart from God.

If one’s long-time friend were becoming an alcoholic, would one be exhibiting more or less love by allowing them to choose to drink?

When you are trying to get rid of a weed, do you cut off the leaves, or pull out the roots? A person’s sinful tendencies must be removed by the person himself. Keeping them from drinking isn’t (for all practical purposes) changing the tendencies of the person to desire alcohol. It is attempting to move them to internally desire change, and move to kill the roots (which only they can do, as they have their own respectable will). Even if you trap a person in a loony bin and keep them from drinking alcohol, will this directly affect their outlook for them? Or is it an attempt to move them to internally change their will?

Enter, let us bow down in worship;
let us kneel before the LORD who made us.

For he is our God,
we are the people he shepherds,
the sheep in his hands.

Oh, that today you would hear his voice:

Do not harden your hearts as at Meribah,
as on the day of Massah in the desert.

There your ancestors tested me;
they tried me though they had seen my works.

Forty years I loathed that generation;
I said: “This people’s heart goes astray;
they do not know my ways.”

Therefore I swore in my anger:
“They shall never enter my rest.”
Psalm 95:6-11

Would an individual shunted into Hell be in any better position to love God? Certainly it might be inadvisable to usher those into Heaven who do not wish to be there, but would one not suspect that there surely must be a more imaginative solution than to simply allow the damned to remain as much?

Back to the weed analogy, the roots of the damned are permanent at judgment. If a sickly person has rejected the only medicine that will save their life, then it doesn’t matter how powerful the medicine is! It matters if they take it or not! If a person chooses to love autonomy over God, then he shall receive it by virtue of freedom (which is to love according to one’s own will).

In the example of the alcoholic friend, is there truly only the option of allowing them to drink or else to forcibly remove their alcohol? What about taking the time to convince them to check into rehab?

That, my friend, is called purgatory. If the alcoholic is striving to remove those “roots” and predispositions to sin, then they are checked into “rehab”, purgatory. Only people who are taking the medicine and trying to get better will be given time for rehabilitation. Otherwise, rehabilitation will be no good, because there will be nothing that the patient will be allowed to be fixed (because he has chosen to be autonomous).

Is it possible for a soul to learn? If not, is Heaven able to be eternal because no learning takes place, allowing for a feeling of an eternal now much like an eternal Alzheimer ward?

A soul can learn in a way that is proper to its nature. Our nature is to learn naturally-- VIA the body. We don’t learn the same way the angels did. After this period of learning, discerning, and choosing what to love, then we are given judgment. If we decided to take the medicine, then we live. If we didn’t, then we die. Figuratively, of course. The nature of the spirit is eternal.

If a soul initially flees God because of Earthly attachments (or attachments to Earthly sins), how is such a soul able to continue those attachments once bereft of a body? If they are not able to continue such attachments, how are they able or willing to do so after death?

Excellent question! My theological genius alarm just went off! I will answer this in a moment.

Also, if it is possible for a soul to learn, how long would one suspect a soul in Hell might come to the realization that he/she/it was wrong about God (especially in light of no longer having Earthly attachments upon which to dwell)? If a period might be conjectured, how many souls might eventually come to a repentant state over a period of infinity? If one or many such souls exist, would it be just for God to keep them there?

Souls realize their sinfulness at judgment. Repentance (the medicine) is not possible to take when you’re metaphorically dead.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[Anthony_V]

CONTINUED

Is it possible to love the freedom of the individual more than the individual itself?

A being of any sort is a collection of applied qualities, filled with life. Being made in the image of God is the paramount quality that we possess, and is what makes us greater than animals. It would seem that this is the pinnacle of our character, and the basis of our spiritual judgment. Certainly, God does not judge animals (who don’t have a conscience). He judges us solely based on how we have taken advantage of this quality, or lack-thereof.

In this life, is it possible for one to remain steadfast in one’s love of any given thing or person without waver? Given that one’s intensity of love might change from year to year, is the timing of God’s judgement to be given any account? If an individual loves a given concept of God in his/her youth, but later abandons it as a new concept is learned, does God, being eternal and outside of time, recall that initial love with as equal clarity as the later disdain?

I think you’re getting the wrong idea. This isn’t the necessity of God being loved (consider those in Hell); it’s the necessity of the creature being able to love God. Certainly, God remembers the affection the person had for him. But is that love? Unfortunately not, and only because of the person’s bad choices.

If so, would God be in a position to admit a person to Heaven who was in a present state of dislike for God in recognition of that earlier love?

No. Was the love truly love if they fell away from it? Love doesn’t fail. People do. At their judgment, they will have no love to claim. We can only love God with his son’s sacred heart (love of God is naturally reserved to the trinity). If we do not possess such grace, then how are we to love God?

If not, would not God, who is omniscient, feel compelled to claim the individual in his/her youth rather than to idly watch the relationship falter long enough to cause condemnation?

Condemnation is a matter of will. One can certainly be invincibly ignorant and not be culpable of certain matters. But if someone is aware that something might be wrong and continues to do it, what love do they have for God? Why have they not sought out the answers and asked if they are offending God? A lover is adamant about loving the beloved.
It’s circular logic!

Thank you for your insights.

My pleasure!

Peace and Joy to you,
Anthony

 

[jmvizanko]

The problem is that such a God is an ontological impossibility. God is all-good as a matter of metaphysical necessity, and therefore all-loving: He wills what is best for His creation, and therefore must (again, as a matter of metaphysical necessity) ordain events in order to maximize the good of creation.

Please elaborate. Because one child anywhere dying from some excruciatingly painful disease contradicts your claim.

I gather from your posts you are perhaps not familiar with our conception of God. We don’t say God is all-good because we hope He is, but because He actually is. We didn’t even need Him to tell us this: Plato and Aristotle figured it out centuries before Christ and they had, to my knowledge, no contact with the Jews.

Once again, can you elaborate a bit? Its not necessarily directly relevant to this thread, but I would love to know why you think he actually is good, especially considering the OP topic at hand.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Is it possible that the feelings of the victims would play any role in God’s justice? Consider that a notorious gangster might choose to convert during his final days and gain Heaven: would such an event grant any solace to his numerous victims?

Alternately, how long would one be expected to hold a personal grudge against one who had wronged them in this life? Would a hundred years suffice for the wound to heal? Would a thousand or a thousand thousand? Once the grudge had receded, is it still true justice for the one who had caused the harm to continue to suffer on account of it? Would justice be served by having an individual suffer for a crime that is no longer remembered–or, if remembered, no longer has any associative negative feelings?

The issue is justice which must be served regardless of the feelings of the victims. If its not served the victims are cheated even if they do not realize it themselves.

Perhaps this is so, but is it not interesting to note that these individuals were described as maidens or virgins? Is this to suggest that even the morally pure might be disinherited in spite of their moral efforts?

No, it is to show regardless of who you are, if you chose to do the wrong thing then you will pay for it. Obviously if they are doing the wrong thing then their efforts aren’t moral.

Also interesting to note is that the maidens dutifully went off and purchased their oil and returned. Why should they go to such efforts if they thought themselves already damned? Additionally, why did they await the bridegroom with anticipation to begin with?

They weren’t ready so they obviously didn’t await the bridegroom with anticipation. Them getting the oil wasn’t them doing their duty but trying to make up for their willful negligence only so they could get into the wedding.

Do these details suggest that they really chose their damnation?

They chose not to be prepared, so yes.

Thank you for your insights.

Thank you for yours.

 

[Anthony_V]

Thank you, but I am not quite clear on your meaning. Is it to say that God observes the passage of time in our world or that he sees the entirety of the Earth’s timeline at once?

If the latter, how is it possible for a soul to pass from the flat-timeline of Earth to the timeless timeline of Heaven? If the former, how is the timeline of Heaven any different from our own timeline?

The experience of a being, whether human or supernatural, is proper to his nature. I couldn’t tell you how God experiences time in depth, because I am not God. What I can tell you, though, is that God invented time, matter, and energy, but he is not bound by it unless voluntarily. That is to say, time and eternity can co-exist without necessarily intermingling (as mind boggling as it seems).

Is there anything beyond God’s power to accomplish?

Shall we put it this way: God’s omnipotence is always reserved in himself. He is limited to only what he wills.

If Jesus’ role is that of redeemer, and he is God (and God is perfect), how is it possible for Jesus to accomplish less than full perfection in his task? How is it that a perfect redeemer might not redeem perfectly?

Would not the rebellion of even a single soul be counted as a failure for Jesus in his role of perfect redemption?

Yay! Time to answer that brilliant question from earlier. There is no indissoluble reasoning behind it because we do not know the intrinsic nature of grace (nor is it relevant). The short answer, however, is still no. I commend to you a brilliant ex-Calvinist, now Catholic theologian by the name of Lawrence Feingold.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between a preternatural state and an eternal one? Also, how does our existing in time have an effect on whether or not we may be reconciled with God?

Again, the experience of a soul is proper to his nature. Likewise for his choices and his abilities. A person is held up to the culpability of their abilities. The angels only had to sin once to merit eternal death. We, however, do not have infused knowledge (lack of ignorance). To better understand this, I again commend to you Dr. Lawrence Feingold. He does a wonderful job at explaining original justice (which is what this topic is called in fancy-people lingo). Be sure to take the time to listen to everything he has to say. I have loads of time because I’m still in high school and not college or the workforce :extrahappy:, so I understand if it may take a few days or so for you, who I assume has a life, to get back!

I sincerely wish that that were to be the case. Thank you again.

Again, my pleasure!

Peace and Joy,
Anthony

 

[Lochias]

Please elaborate. Because one child anywhere dying from some excruciatingly painful disease contradicts your claim.

You are not God, and do not know best. If we are to aim for Heaven, and have out eyes set firmly on the afterlife, then physical suffering and death are placed in a backseat to hope and desire for eternal life. As to the way things play out for the betterment of all, only God knows. Knowing what we know of God, it is our hope and faith to trust Him to do what is best.

Once again, can you elaborate a bit? Its not necessarily directly relevant to this thread, but I would love to know why you think he actually is good, especially considering the OP topic at hand.

You cannot understand from a position of willful misunderstanding. You claim that because there is no hard evidence, you cannot choose to understand. You have been show how and where to research your position, but you refuse to do so. You can ask all the questions in the world, but until you are willing to step beyond whatever it is that makes you afraid to seek for answers outside the control of your own life, you will always struggle with the questions you have. You say upthread that you are “perfectly happy.” From your point of view, perfect happiness is subjective, and you do not sound perfectly happy to me.

God Bless.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Why then, given the seeming urgency of this creed, do you consider that God allows his church to be so fragmented and divided?

Why also do different rites even within the Catholic Church hold to different Bibles? For example, why would the Ethiopian Catholic Bible contain 6 more books than that of the Roman Rite?

The Church is one in doctrine. Also please site your source regarding the Ethiopian catholic Bible containig 6 more books than that of the Roman Rite.

If the child rebelled against the parent, is it not the parent’s assumption that the child is merely misinformed? If the child had the exact knowledge and experience of the parent, would he or she have likely rebelled?

No, the child is not misinformed. No one is in Hell because they were not given the necessary means to go to Heaven. I’m not trying to be mean but if you want to discuss the justice of Hell based on Catholic belief then please do so. In the Catholic faith we believe the souls in Hell rejected God even after they were given sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid it but they rejected God and chose to be obstinate in their sin. If you want to discuss a Hell in were souls are there through no fault of their own then you want to discuss a Hell that me and the Catholic Church does not believe in.

But if God foresaw their response to his love even prior to their creation, why proceed?

Because these souls give glory to God’s justice and because something is better than nothing.

And even though they may have been greatly intelligent, were these angels also all-knowing? If not all-knowing, how could they have even imagined an existence without God with any degree of accuracy? If unable to imagine it, is it possible that any may have regretted their rash decision after the fact?

Did not God craft that very nature with due care? If God was the crafter and originator of their nature, could he not equally have crafted them with superior wisdom to realize their fault before acting upon it?

Once again they had sufficient knowledge and grace to avoid their sins but they chose to sin anyway and oppose God who is Love itself. Hell is more than just for a being that would reject the goodness of God.

Additionally, if God is capable of creating an Earth in which individuals are free to act against God’s wishes (and by extension, his nature) and yet they remain largely free from torment, why would he not be able to create a similar realm for the fallen angels?

The obstinate sinners in this life are not free from torment. They are the most unhappy beings that roam the Earth and they know this.

Thank you for your continued assistance.

I apologize if some of my responses seem like I’m being short with you.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Perhaps I am confused, but was it not earlier your position that God does not actively throw any to Hell, but that the individuals are themselves the ones who choose it? If one is good 99% of the time (which I imagine is a very small percentage of mankind, indeed) would they not be surprised to end up in Hell rather than be conscious of choosing it?

Nope they will not be surprised.

In this world, my mother would have a finite existence so my anger with the killer would be based on the concept of never again being able to see her as a direct result of his actions. In such an instance, my concern for proper justice would be four-fold:

1. I would wish some measure of punishment be extended to the criminal to compensate against my own hurt.
2. I would wish the criminal be prevented from repeating his offense so as to save others.
3. I would wish the criminal have sufficient time away from the things that brought the murderous thoughts about in the first place in the unlikely hope that he might redeem himself (especially if he used to be a good Samaritan)
4. The entire system of justice would require a deterrent in order to prevent further such crimes.

But assuming this is a Heavenly case, #1 would not apply given that I would not feel hurt and she would not be permanently lost. #2 to #4 would not apply given no ability on the part of the criminal to re-offend nor, presumably, any desire to do so.

The anaology is about justice my friend not about how you would feel. A person that says they are not sorry for their crimes and admits if allowed to go free or be paroled they would do them again, deserves to be prison for life without parole; regardless of the fact that they were once a good samaritan.

Is someone worthy of being discarded because of a single fault? Why not, instead, repair the fault? In a Heavenly situation would it be beyond God’s skill to effect a cure (either by having the criminal relive the crime(s) through the eyes of his victim(s) or by some other means that might evoke empathy?

As stated above they are not sorry for their fault and would gladly do it again and again. So what cure to you propose for someone like that?

In such a situation, had the angels truly decided freely? If denied the beatific vision, would they also not have been equally denied the view of Hell?

They rejected teh beatific vision which is why they reside in Hell.

Now, given an 18 year-old is closer to the status of a peer to a parent than is a 3-year old, is it your opinion that in death we approach God/Jesus on anything approximating an equal footing? If the relationship is closer to that of a 3-year old and his/her parent(s) would you be willing to reread the analogy in that light?

I disagreed with your use of a 3 year old because a three year old does not have the use of reason; an 18 year old does which is why they are called an adult and why they must take full respocibility for their actions. Any parent will tell you that regardless of their age a son or daughter is considered a child in their eyes.

So if one proceeded from a point of loving God to a point of no longer loving him is the fault with God for not choosing for the one an earlier death?

Nope the fault is with the person since their love was never genuine.

I appreciate your candor. Please do not think that I am attempting to make you do otherwise, but for me to resolve my own internal confusion is it alright if I ask more questions about your love?

Sure but I’m not going to promise that I will be able to answer your questions since it may be difficult to find the words to describe my personal relationship with God.

If no extensions are given, is it possible for one to die undecided? If not, could one’s decision be at the very least necessarily weak and subject to change? In other words, is it possible to end up in Hell because of a mild dislike for God, or must it be outright hatred?

Becuase the soul rejected God while having sufficent knowedge and grace there is no such thing as them having a mild hatred for God.

This is an analogy with which I am familiar. Let us accept that a soul in Hell is tormented by guilt and conscience to such an extent that self-loathing ensues. Is a soul in Heaven, perhaps a parent of the one in Hell, able to intercede for it so that some form of therapeutic conversation is possible to soothe this torment?

The answer is no. Someone that has a guilty conscience but will not do what is necessary to rid themselve of the guilt aren’t comforted by a kind word from a loved one even in this life.

If no such conversation is possible, and the child remains in torment, is the parent able to fully enjoy the bliss of Heaven?

Yes since they will be One with God and His will.

 

[onemangang]

Completely your right, but at least I know you are wrong, and sadly and unfortunately that you assume me to be that highly intellectually dishonest. It may be convenient for the coherence of your faith for me to be lying when I say I have not chosen to be an unbeliever, but it isn’t true.

Christianity is a revealed religion.
Jesus was pre-announced.
For me to say other than what has been revealed through Christ, would be untruthful, sorry! I’m merely stating truth claims, as revealed in scripture!

Which is why I am capable of using logic, reason, knowledge, etc., without any need for god. Could you please even being to illustrate why god is necessary for any of these things? Although I suppose this is not necessarily the thread to do so… But feel free to start another thread or point me to where this is argued.

I think this gets at the heart of the question really, why logic, reason, knowledge?
I think one must posit the transcendent infinite mind, to account for Logic, the atheistic world view can not.

I think it would be better debated in the Philosophy section of apologetics than here

Perhaps a thread could be started called " How do Atheist account for the Laws of Logic?"

forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=118

What is puzzling about not wanting to burn in hell for no good reason whatsoever?

I don’t know , but I will make a comparison.
I cant stop worrying that I may take to deep of a breath, and swallow the moon!
I believe that to be illogical, so it never really crosses my mind!

Well it certainly shouldn’t be left up to a being that wants to torture ANY soul for an eternity.

Fair enough, as I said Christianity is a revealed religion, Justice is yet another absolute atheism cannot account for. So show me how you prove logic in an atheistic world view, then perhaps we could start another thread on " ** Can justice be accounted for in atheism? **"

forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=118

I didn’t say all suicides. How about a terminally ill cancer patient in excruciating pain?

Taking of ones own life is unjust!

 

[minkymurph]

Which is precisely why the only sort of god I can imagine is more of the deist formulation, that he is isolated or separated or doesn’t even care about life on this rock. If a god honestly cares about us and “can” interfere with our existence, it doesn’t make any sense that the only way I can find salvation is either from trusting a bunch of people from one of many religions, or by finding him in what I consider a ridiculous ancient book. Let alone him not preventing or curing children who die from excruciatingly painful diseases…

Where did you get the idea you can only find salvation from trusting a bunch of people from one of many religions, and the only way you can find God is in a ridiculous ancient book?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No. It is not her place to cause suffering. I see what you’re getting at but bear in mind that analogies fail to capture the fullness of what’s at stake here, because there is nothing in our experience quite like God.

If God’s goal is to have us freely love him, how is that possible when one knows the alternative is that he will treat one with enough disdain to have them languish in misery for eternity? Would one consider a friend to be a true friend if they confided one day that it sure was a good thing that the two were close friends because otherwise he would set the other’s house ablaze?

At what level might the apparent callousness of God’s response to eternal suffering possibly deter a feeling of true, personal connection?

On the other hand, we can say that it is good for a man who abandons his duties to his family to feel guilt, grief, and remorse over doing so – and that it is good even if those feelings cannot repair the damage he has done (for instance, because his family has died).

This is a fair point worth considering. Certainly the feeling of remorse in spite of being unable to repair the damage would ensure that the feeling was genuine, but would it serve any larger purpose or would if fall into the category of “suffering for suffering’s sake” if prolonged eternally?

Would it bring joy to the members of said family in Heaven, for example? Or would it bring them pain?

Certainly. It keeps the damned from thinking they’ve won, when they (obviously) haven’t. As in the above case, grief is the proper response to having spurned love. The spurning of eternal love merits eternal grief.

Why might it be important to God to ensure his enemies are unable to feel any form of victory? Is he necessarily that competitive or is he instead as Jesus suggested: meek and mild, humble and patient?

Would an individual possessing true humility seek to vanquish his foes in such an overwhelming fashion? Would he feel “spurned” by they rejection and require that they feel eternal grief in return? What type of personality would feel these needs?

Are you asking me if ignorance can excuse the sin of unbelief? Yes, it can, under various difficult-to-satisfy circumstances. Or are you asking if it can excuse sin generally? No, because no man is truly ignorant of evil. The natural law is, after all, “inscribed on the hearts of men.” It requires no explanation.

Can ignorance be a choice? If, for example, two sets of information are available for the “ignorant” to choose–to either imagine a loving creator or a vindictive one–and both sets have equal merit in his eyes, would the individual still be forgiven the ignorance of choosing wrongly?

Both of my parents are apostates from Catholicism. Of my three siblings, two are openly-practicing lesbians and one is a very belligerent atheist with a deeply disordered life. If my beliefs are not in error, then, barring miracles (which are always possible), my entire (immediate) family will go to Hell. I pray that winds up not being the case but I can’t do much more than just pray.

You have my respect for walking your own path in light of those who surround you. May I ask if you were close with your family in the past? Are you now?

There’s no sense asking if I’m “at peace” with it. It’s just how things are. You may as well ask me if I’m at peace with the fact the gravitational constant is not 1% higher or 1% lower. The gravitational constant is what it is. The proportion of cosmological lambda in the universe is what it is. God’s mercy and His justice both are what they are. It’s not given to me to complain about it.

Am I understanding correctly that you are not at peace with the knowledge of their potential doom, but that you are able to accept it in some way? Is it a sort of resignation after a lengthy period of trying all reasonable options? This has no bearing on our discussion so feel free to ignore these questions if you think them too personal.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Coming a bit late to this thread and apologies in advance if I say something that has been said before, and for not reading all the replies.

You quite rightly elude to the problem of the ‘choice’ element. To explain, if you are given a choice of believing in God or not believing in God, but punished for not believing, that is not a true choice. Telling someone they are free to make a choice but there are serious consequences for making the wrong one means there is really no choice to be made if you follow me.

People very often do believe what their parents tell them. My mother used to say, ‘you’re religion is an accident of birth.’ Certainly, there are people who convert to other faiths, there are exceptions to every rule, but as a high percentage of people do tend to stay in the faith they were brought up in as they have been raised to believe it is the right one. Someone once asked me, ‘Why Jesus? Why not Mohammed or a Hindu guru or Tibetan monk?’ If I had been raised Muslim, or Hindu would I believe in Jesus? The honest answer would have to be I don’t know.

As far as hell goes, it hinges on belief in the immortal soul. If we believe we have an immortal soul, then we are compelled to believe in some eternal destiny of the soul. In the Christian world that is believed to be heaven or hell. Hell means many different things to many different people. Some believe it is a literal fire, others don’t. I would say we cannot know what the physical state of hell is because we do not know what the physical make-up of the soul is. However, what is universally believed in the Christian world is the state of hell is eternal separation from God. My reasoning on it would be - and I stress it is a personal view - eternal separation is not imposed on those who do not want to be separated from God eternally, it is given to those who have that desire - those who have no desire to be with God eternally right to the moment of death, and perhaps beyond. I would reason that judgement involves more than lack of faith or believe, but outright rejection of God. Lack of belief is not necessarily outright rejection. I would also reason that judgement concerning our final destiny does not rest on one thing, and one thing alone.
If a person lacks faith or believe it is known only onto God why, and how culpable they are as individuals for that lack of faith or belief. I would reason that a person who totally rejects God is one who knows not only that he exists, but many things we are taught about God are true.

Such people are known only onto God. We cannot presume to know how God will ultimately judge all of us. God reserves judgement for Himself and Himself alone. Humans were never given the authority to decide the final destiny of others. One final note: belief in God and living in accordance with how He asked us to live is about more than avoiding hell.

Thank you for your frank honesty. So is it your opinion that an individual who was banished to Hell might redeem herself after the fact and enter Heaven at a later date? Similarly, do you believe it is possible to originally merit Heaven only to lose that privilege at a later date?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Allow me to rephrase in a more “politically correct” manner. God does not exert his benevolence on a creature who has eternally rejected it. The matter of existence, as per the quality, certainly does exist apart from God.

So does this mean that God no longer loves the souls in Hell, or, since he is omniscient and so knew they would end up there eventually, does it mean that he never loved them to begin with?

If he loved them during their stay on Earth, how was he able to remain eternal, and unchanging, by no longer loving them after death?

Alternately, if he loves them still while they are in Hell, would this mean that God might be able to love that which is evil? Would it mean that he necessarily shares in their pain through the part of love that is empathy?

Or is he ignorant of their pain in light of the fact that he is not present in Hell? If so, does this mean that he equally might no longer be aware of the soul therein? Is God able to forget?

When you are trying to get rid of a weed, do you cut off the leaves, or pull out the roots? A person’s sinful tendencies must be removed by the person himself. Keeping them from drinking isn’t (for all practical purposes) changing the tendencies of the person to desire alcohol. It is attempting to move them to internally desire change, and move to kill the roots (which only they can do, as they have their own respectable will). Even if you trap a person in a loony bin and keep them from drinking alcohol, will this directly affect their outlook for them? Or is it an attempt to move them to internally change their will?

This is a good point so let us move back from the point of no-return to inquire:

Since it seems reasonable to foresee that certain personalities are more prone to alcoholism than others, is it just for an omniscient parent to watch his child take his first drink when knowing the certain outcome? Is not a great deal of the cure to be found in the prevention of the disease? With the analogy of the weed, is not a good gardener one who removes the weeds before they take firm root?

Back to the weed analogy, the roots of the damned are permanent at judgment. If a sickly person has rejected the only medicine that will save their life, then it doesn’t matter how powerful the medicine is! It matters if they take it or not! If a person chooses to love autonomy over God, then he shall receive it by virtue of freedom (which is to love according to one’s own will).

What determines that the roots are permanent? Why would a loving God and a perfect redeemer not be able or willing to save all? Why would the damned not merely move on to the next test or the next level of refinement?

Does a smelter discard its imperfect creations or are they not instead reprocessed until a desirable outcome is reached?

That, my friend, is called purgatory. If the alcoholic is striving to remove those “roots” and predispositions to sin, then they are checked into “rehab”, purgatory. Only people who are taking the medicine and trying to get better will be given time for rehabilitation. Otherwise, rehabilitation will be no good, because there will be nothing that the patient will be allowed to be fixed (because he has chosen to be autonomous).

So why are not all who would merit Hell merely placed in Purgatory?

A soul can learn in a way that is proper to its nature. Our nature is to learn naturally-- VIA the body. We don’t learn the same way the angels did. After this period of learning, discerning, and choosing what to love, then we are given judgment. If we decided to take the medicine, then we live. If we didn’t, then we die. Figuratively, of course. The nature of the spirit is eternal.

I am not quite clear on this. Does this mean that once in Heaven, a soul no longer learns? If so, does this mean that one may expect no great truths to be unveiled over the passage of eons? Will the Alzheimer sufferer not regain his/her memories? Will the child remain in his/her ignorance? Will the meeting of new contacts be impossible due to one’s lacking the means to recall them?

Excellent question! My theological genius alarm just went off! I will answer this in a moment.

Souls realize their sinfulness at judgment. Repentance (the medicine) is not possible to take when you’re metaphorically dead.

Why would God not approve of allowing the medicine to be available if he is perfect love? What part of his nature demands that those in Hell remain there if there were any way for him to imagine their redemption and release?

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[Jelrak_TB]

CONTINUED

A being of any sort is a collection of applied qualities, filled with life. Being made in the image of God is the paramount quality that we possess, and is what makes us greater than animals. It would seem that this is the pinnacle of our character, and the basis of our spiritual judgment. Certainly, God does not judge animals (who don’t have a conscience). He judges us solely based on how we have taken advantage of this quality, or lack-thereof.

What then does God love? Is it our stumbling upon him in the darkness of this world and then choosing to love him? If so, how would that be substantially different from narcissism: the loving us us because we love him as a means of reflecting his own self-love?

Alternately, if God is pure, unconditional love–indeed, the wellspring of love itself–how could one’s actions, reactions, or purposeful insults have any bearing on God’s determination to love the one? If God could neither be harmed nor countermanded by the actions of his creations, why would he offer incentives and disincentives to those who might choose to live with him? If a parent’s small child claimed to hate the parent, would the parent cease to love the child and begin to behave accordingly? Or would the parent be more inclined to spend even more time with the child than before in order to convey the full spectrum of the love that is felt so that it might be reciprocated naturally?

Also, is a god of infinite love truly satisfied to be surrounded with those who chose to love him mainly out of fear of his purported wrath? What gentle, loving parent would be satisfied to receive the love of their child primarily due to such conditions?

I think you’re getting the wrong idea. This isn’t the necessity of God being loved (consider those in Hell); it’s the necessity of the creature being able to love God. Certainly, God remembers the affection the person had for him. But is that love? Unfortunately not, and only because of the person’s bad choices.

Why would affection not find its source in love? Why would bad choices be equal to a lack of love? Might one suspect that there are many children whose parents still love them in spite of bad choices? Might it be equally likely that there are many children who have made such choices who still harbor love for their parents?

No. Was the love truly love if they fell away from it? Love doesn’t fail. People do. At their judgment, they will have no love to claim. We can only love God with his son’s sacred heart (love of God is naturally reserved to the trinity). If we do not possess such grace, then how are we to love God?

Why would one be unable to lose one’s love for God? What might obstruct such a loss of love if one loved a concept of what they thought was God at one stage and then learned a new concept that caused that love to fade? Additionally, what would prevent such a one to learn an even more refined concept of God in order to love him anew?

Condemnation is a matter of will. One can certainly be invincibly ignorant and not be culpable of certain matters. But if someone is aware that something might be wrong and continues to do it, what love do they have for God? Why have they not sought out the answers and asked if they are offending God? A lover is adamant about loving the beloved. It’s circular logic!

Who might it be suggested one ask to ensure they are not giving God offense? If the Church, what happens if the one asking does not believe them? If it is a friend, what happens if the one asking does not believe him? If an apologist, what happens if the apologist refuses to respond?

Is a lover adamant about loving one who does not appear to be courting them?

Thank for your sincere efforts.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The issue is justice which must be served regardless of the feelings of the victims. If its not served the victims are cheated even if they do not realize it themselves.

Would one necessarily feel cheated to discover that a childhood bully of whom they were a victim in the 2nd grade had never been punished for those actions fifty years past? What if the one had entirely forgiven the bully and moved on so as to have completely forgotten the incident?

Is justice such a rigid construct that it must be exacted even in a courtroom lacking plaintiffs?

Should a child be made to work in hard labor for 50 years to compensate for a spate of bullying done in the 2nd grade? If not, how is God’s purported justice any different for exacting an infinite punishment on a finite, and largely ignorant, crime?

No, it is to show regardless of who you are, if you chose to do the wrong thing then you will pay for it. Obviously if they are doing the wrong thing then their efforts aren’t moral.

May it then be disregarded as unimportant that they were morally pure?

They weren’t ready so they obviously didn’t await the bridegroom with anticipation. Them getting the oil wasn’t them doing their duty but trying to make up for their willful negligence only so they could get into the wedding.

Does not the fact that they awaited long enough for day to become night, along with the fact that they brought lanterns at all, suggest that they waited in at the very least partial anticipation?

They chose not to be prepared, so yes.

Assuming one does not find such judgement overly harsh, would one anticipate the same form of treatment from an earthly judge? Were one to disregard a speed limit would one insist that the officer apply the fullest fine available for the misdeed (having chosen freely to commit it)?

Or might one instead hope for a minimal fine or even a simple warning?

In which situation (assuming full knowledge of the crime and its consequences) might one feel enough gratitude towards the officer to encourage future obedience out of simple appreciation of his mercy and the desire to not take further advantage of his kindness?

Under which circumstance might one instead merely feel less appreciation for the policing force in general?