Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

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

If a woman is deeply in love with her spouse, but he has fallen out of love with her, would true love dictate that she cause him to suffer or merely that she suffer his rejection in silence? Which attitude might have the best chance of eventually having the husband reciprocate her love?

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.

This is quite sensible, but is it true that eternal torment serves a purpose? If a one-time touching of a hot stove were to cause one agony for the rest of his/her days would it serve the same purpose that a warning shock might have served?

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.

Assuming that the one who rejects God does so on the principle of not understanding him, or for reasons based on a deep-seated belief that God was not loving, would such a one still merit eternal torment in your eyes?

Have you ever known anyone, whom you loved, who has rejected God for any reason? Did you continue to love them or did you feel at peace anticipating the full measure of the suffering they were destined to endure?

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

 

[Anthony_V]

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?

No, not necessarily. That’s actually a very good observation (a perspective I hadn’t really ever thought about). The problem with that lies wherein the judgement is completed by subjective means-- proper to our time on earth. This is a reason why time can exist, even though God doesn’t have to be bound by it (apart from the obvious).

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

In our spiritual walk, we are called to “let go and let God”. This is certainly not pressed upon us. In order for “Jesus to take the wheel”, we must let go. This includes the time at judgement, where our state of being (as on earth) is completed. If we die with a death-grip (pun intended) on our lives, and haven’t relinquished control to God, what is he to do about it without trespassing the freedom in which he has given us?

Look at it from this way. God offers our reconciliation to us, through himself as a sacrifice in order to win our hearts, over and over and over and over. Jesus Christ is constantly knocking at the door. We aren’t here to wait for that period of reconciliation; it’s now, and God has chosen for that reconciliation to take place here on earth where we have many more opportunities; as opposed to a single judgement moment, like what the angels had (although, they were at a lack of ignorance and thus fully culpable, which is proper to their judgement). Strictly speaking, it could be understood that our judgment is indeed happening here and now (in the sense that we can gravely sin and kill our soul); however, it is important to remember that the essence of time can be stretched and pulled, such that absolute things become proper to their physicality. In other words: we can still be reconciled to God even after we mortally sin because we exist in time. This is not the case, however, with the demons, who exist in a preternatural state. That is to say (for the demons), they are damned into eternity, though they do not exist, by nature, in eternity itself as God does.

And with you. Thank you for your insights.

My pleasure. It is my prayer that God guides you safely into his bosom. God loves you very much!

Peace and Joy,
Anthony

 

[Searcher360]

As a person actively searching for a faith that just feels “right” I watch these discussions with interest. Unfortunately, the well meaning posts largely reaffirm my existing notions of organized religion.

I just do not see why an almighty being (and yes, I do believe in him/her) would exhibit human weakness like anger, wrath and an apparent need for sycophantic followers showering endless praise. Would the almighty really care what people eat on what day of the week? Really?

The more I study organized religion, and my studies are admittedly in the early stage due to the realities of life, like providing for family, etc, the more I see the byzantine rules more a function of man than God. History shows over an over that fear is a great tool for control–and what better fear is there than eternal torment? I tend to think the whole concept of Hell arose from primitive man’s view of volcanic activity, but that’s just me.

Really, this is a fascinating discussion. I imagine ancient Egyptians, Romans or even prehistoric man as studiously defending their respective faiths. I don’t think there ever can be a “right” answer, since each much decide for himself what rings true. To think that God would punish people for following their parents’ faith, community norms or simply the limits of their inherent intellect is beyond my capacity to understand. I simply cannot fathom God punishing a person in eternity for laboring to find a faith, living by the proverbial golden rule and doing the best that he/she can. I feel that God, like the universe, is better suited to logic than untempered emotion. I seek God, as well as truth, logic, knowledge, love, forgiveness, peace and, of course, happiness.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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?

God is not only our Father, He is also our Judge. If the son of a court judge had committed a horrible crime do you think it would be justice if the judge was to let his son go free just because he loves his son? I mean how does this serve justice for the victimes of his sons crime especially if his son isn’t sorry for committing the crime in the first place and if the victims were also children of the same judge? Would it be loving for the judge to exclude their right to justice? Would that be fair?

God allows the suffering in Hell not because He doesn’t love the soul but because He loves all souls equally and those souls that did the right thing deserve justice.

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?

Yes and no. What is signified by them going to buy more oil is mans foolishness in thinking they have the means to escape God’s justice. Notice in the parable the 5 foolish virgins didn’t say they were sorry to the bridegroom for being late and unprepared; on the contrary they told Him he should let them in, as if they deserved to be there even though they were late and unprepared. They had no respect for the bridegroom whatsoever.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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. The Church is the pillar and bullwork of all truth and the Bible is the truth because it was produced by the Church. The Bible can only help if the Church is there. I mean think about it. the Bible wouldnt do much good for the blind or those who cannot read. This is why God gave his creation a Church in order to teach them and preach the truth to all nations. This is why the Church must be like the truth; Universal, Holy, and One. Hence why in the creed we say we believe in One Holy Catholic Church.

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?

The child understood the warning and still did it anyway. Loving someone but not allowing them to freely love you isn’t love. You see you can’t take away the ability to make choice without contradicting either love or justice.

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?

The angels didn’t have a period where the going got rough. When they were created they were given a perfect test of their freedom which came with perfect consequences. The angels are very intellegent beings. When they sinned they did so knowing exactly what it meant and what it would cost them. God IS Love itself. God is Heaven itself. When the angels chose to be seperated from God they knowingly made the choice to be beings of zero love. Now why would God deter them from making a decision they wanted to make?

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?

The answer is no because God cannot give them a place which does not fit their very nature. Hell is seperated from God who is Love itself.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Continued…

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?

The fear the Bible speaks of is a holy fear. A fear that is meant to keep in our minds that God is just and that His justice will not suffer those who love injustice. Some think that they can do certain sins just because they believe they’re good 99% percent of the time and that they will go to heaven because they believe their good will outweigh their bad. Yet this would not be the mark of a good judge for God to do this, nor would it be the mark of a good person to think this way.

If someone murdered your mom and you went to court would it be the mark of a good judge to let your moms killer go just because this was the killers first offence? What if the killer had a long history of being a good sameritan? Would this still justify the crime of murder? Add on top of this the fact that your moms killer isn’t sorry for the murder and said he wanted to do it, would you still advocate that the judge let him go? Yeah the answer is no it wouldn’t justify the killer, you would want justice for your mom and yourself, and a good judge would deliver this.

Now lets go a step further and say the above killer is you. Do you still believe the judge should let you go just because its you? I would hope you would be honest enough to look at the scenario and admit that the judge should lock you up and throw away the key.

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?

No they will never be released from Hell since they have denied Love itself: God. There can be no love in them becuase love is contrary to their very nature. Furthermore it wasnt until the good angels made their choice were they allowed the beatific vision: Heaven.

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?

Your example is a gross misrepresentation. The child isnt 3, the child is 18 and truly no longer loves his parents even though the parents still love the child. Should the parents not banish the child, when the child says it will never love them, or accept their love, and that it will if allowed to continue living in the parents house, torment and hurt the other children? The answer is no. Clearly the 18 year old has forced his loving parents to take such measures of banishment against him and that these measures arent evidence of a lack of love in the parents but an absence of love in the 18 year old.

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?

No its not possible because as stated before God will give you in this life the necessary means to be saved.

Have you decided if you love God?

I do everyday I’m alive.

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

No extensions since God gives you the perfect amount of time to decided in this life.

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?

Have you ever had a guilty conscience? If so then you can understand how you can be a torment to yourself; plus you will in a very very small way know what the souls in Hell feel like.

 

[MrSylvester]

As a person actively searching for a faith that just feels “right” I watch these discussions with interest. Unfortunately, the well meaning posts largely reaffirm my existing notions of organized religion.

I just do not see why an almighty being (and yes, I do believe in him/her) would exhibit human weakness like anger, wrath and an apparent need for sycophantic followers showering endless praise. Would the almighty really care what people eat on what day of the week? Really?

The more I study organized religion, and my studies are admittedly in the early stage due to the realities of life, like providing for family, etc, the more I see the byzantine rules more a function of man than God. History shows over an over that fear is a great tool for control–and what better fear is there than eternal torment? I tend to think the whole concept of Hell arose from primitive man’s view of volcanic activity, but that’s just me.

Really, this is a fascinating discussion. I imagine ancient Egyptians, Romans or even prehistoric man as studiously defending their respective faiths. I don’t think there ever can be a “right” answer, since each much decide for himself what rings true. To think that God would punish people for following their parents’ faith, community norms or simply the limits of their inherent intellect is beyond my capacity to understand. I simply cannot fathom God punishing a person in eternity for laboring to find a faith, living by the proverbial golden rule and doing the best that he/she can. I feel that God, like the universe, is better suited to logic than untempered emotion. I seek God, as well as truth, logic, knowledge, love, forgiveness, peace and, of course, happiness.

Nice try mister troll. Apperantly, hell was so effective in controlling the masses that during the middle ages, everyone was a zombie and sin was practically non-existent. Certainly the best selling book of the middle ages wasn’t Facetiae. You’ll scarecely hear a story of men being horny during those times…

God punishes people not out of passion because He doesn’t feel passion. When He sends one t hell, he knows full well what He is doing and is doing it out of a sense of justice. If God was so passioane and angry, why doesn’'t he just kick destroy the world immediately like, right now? If God was so angry and unjust, why did He give us Jesus and Mary. You know, Jesus who won for us all the graces we need to be friends with God and Mary, the Mother of Mercy who actually brings us to Jesus and GAVE us Jesus? Rejecting God out of pure laziness or spite is an infinite sin because its rejection of something infinitely good. God doesn’t send people to hell because He wants to, they send themselves there. God is infinitely merciful but His mercy is protected by His justice.

 

[MrSylvester]

Allow me to open with a few points in the interests of full disclosure:

1. I am not a “troll” 2) I am not Catholic and doubt the accuracy of Christianity or any organized religion for that matter. 3) I do believe in God 4) I search for truth and something that resonates with me to believe in and 5) I do not wish to offend, but realize my points & inquiries may inadvertently do so.

While browsing online I found this thread and was fascinated by the exchange as it mirrors my own thoughts. I have, to the disappointment of some, eschewed organized religion as I feel it inconsistent with my version of logic. I don’t fathom why God would go through all sorts of “parlor tricks” rather then just proclaim himself. I look at the history of the world and note the incredible suffering inflicted in the name of religion, with ancient peoples as convinced they alone possessed truth as modern religions today do.

What puzzles me is the often circular logic employed by the devout of many faiths. More specifically, I frequently encounter versions of “If its in the Bible it is true”, followed by" If is true if it is in the Bible".In fact, I see many posters here pointing not to external sources, but fellow believers past and present. Such seems illogical to me on many levels. Citing, in essence, to oneself does not convince me.

I once had a discussion with a priest and commented that to me “there is more than one way to the mountain top”, as I put it. He agreed, which surprised me.

In short, how can any one religion claim exclusive truth? Why would God have all sorts of hoops & hurdles when, in my opinion, a more direct approach is kinder and less confusing. I note with more than a little skepticism that most religions I know arose in a time before science, math, widespread literacy and more. If any religion were the One would it not be inborn? Since people tend to believe in whatever the norm is in the family or community I ascribe belief more to geography than choice.

For me, I continue my search or what feels right to me and view conversations like this as furtherance of my quest. Thanks for the indulgence.

Discuss and comment?

Because as everyone knows, belief that a single normal man could be God or rather, Christianity itself was SOOO normal when it was invented (no, not by Saint Paul; Chuck Norris invented Christianity. And yet look at the legacy of the Catholic Church: it defined western Christianity amongst them concepts like charity and sexual ethics and converted many countries by its missions to the true religion!

There can only be one religion and that is the Catholic religion. The only way all religions can be equal is if the believers didn’t believe their own religions were real, something that is impossible. Oh, wait, why can’t we have our own interpretation of what is God? You can’t, because you yourself wil not believe your own interpretation. You yourself know not a single thing about theology, you ar enot intelligent, you are a moron and you’re a dumbass! I’m just joking but how can you believe in your own tye of God if you know you just made it up? Its like telling a scientist to leave religious people alone and believe their own version of how the world began, you just don’t do it. The scientist knows that evolution is true with its common ancestor and Y chromosome Adam and stuff and to have a crazy Inca tell you that people came from holes in the ground just forces the poor man to lose faith in humanity and check himself in a mental institute.

Jesus is God. He came into the world, said He was God and founded the Catholic Church. And yes, Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Though C.S Lewis was an Anglican, he actually became Catholic on his death bed as he recieved the Catholic sacraments when he died. He said: * am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.*

And before you tell me that Paul invented Christianity, He didn’t. Chuck Norris did. No he didn’t either, Jesus found Christianity. If He didn’t found a Church, Jesus would have no legacy; He’d be a footnote in history books much like Simon Magus. I refer you to this post of mine: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8868464&postcount=40

 

[fred_conty]

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?

If you don’t believe in God then this subject of hell is of no concern and therefore no problem for you. If there is no God there is no reward and no punishment nor is there an after life, but only annilation, non existence. So your first priority should be to investigate the reality of God.

Wish you well in your pursuits.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

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

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?

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?

Does a person who was forced into heaven really belong there? No, they don’t. They wouldn’t ever be able to love God.

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?

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?

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 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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

Ah, we all do that from time to time; don’t worry about it. You have likely read my response by now.

Thank you for your insights.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No, not necessarily. That’s actually a very good observation (a perspective I hadn’t really ever thought about). The problem with that lies wherein the judgement is completed by subjective means-- proper to our time on earth. This is a reason why time can exist, even though God doesn’t have to be bound by it (apart from the obvious).

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?

In our spiritual walk, we are called to “let go and let God”. This is certainly not pressed upon us. In order for “Jesus to take the wheel”, we must let go. This includes the time at judgement, where our state of being (as on earth) is completed. If we die with a death-grip (pun intended) on our lives, and haven’t relinquished control to God, what is he to do about it without trespassing the freedom in which he has given us?

Is there anything beyond God’s power to accomplish?

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?

Look at it from this way. God offers our reconciliation to us, through himself as a sacrifice in order to win our hearts, over and over and over and over. Jesus Christ is constantly knocking at the door. We aren’t here to wait for that period of reconciliation; it’s now, and God has chosen for that reconciliation to take place here on earth where we have many more opportunities; as opposed to a single judgement moment, like what the angels had (although, they were at a lack of ignorance and thus fully culpable, which is proper to their judgement). Strictly speaking, it could be understood that our judgment is indeed happening here and now (in the sense that we can gravely sin and kill our soul); however, it is important to remember that the essence of time can be stretched and pulled, such that absolute things become proper to their physicality. In other words: we can still be reconciled to God even after we mortally sin because we exist in time. This is not the case, however, with the demons, who exist in a preternatural state. That is to say (for the demons), they are damned into eternity, though they do not exist, by nature, in eternity itself as God does.

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?

My pleasure. It is my prayer that God guides you safely into his bosom. God loves you very much!

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

 

[Searcher360]

Because as everyone knows, belief that a single normal man could be God or rather, Christianity itself was SOOO normal when it was invented (no, not by Saint Paul; Chuck Norris invented Christianity. And yet look at the legacy of the Catholic Church: it defined western Christianity amongst them concepts like charity and sexual ethics and converted many countries by its missions to the true religion!

There can only be one religion and that is the Catholic religion. The only way all religions can be equal is if the believers didn’t believe their own religions were real, something that is impossible. Oh, wait, why can’t we have our own interpretation of what is God? You can’t, because you yourself wil not believe your own interpretation. You yourself know not a single thing about theology, you ar enot intelligent, you are a moron and you’re a dumbass! I’m just joking but how can you believe in your own tye of God if you know you just made it up? Its like telling a scientist to leave religious people alone and believe their own version of how the world began, you just don’t do it. The scientist knows that evolution is true with its common ancestor and Y chromosome Adam and stuff and to have a crazy Inca tell you that people came from holes in the ground just forces the poor man to lose faith in humanity and check himself in a mental institute.

Jesus is God. He came into the world, said He was God and founded the Catholic Church. And yes, Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Though C.S Lewis was an Anglican, he actually became Catholic on his death bed as he recieved the Catholic sacraments when he died… Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

I am struggling to understand you. You say “because everyone knows”, yet fail to explain this circular logic. You then say Jesus is God essentially because he said so. Well, now that certainly convinces me. Um, no.

Are you serious here or merely trying to poke fun? I hope you aren’t serious as that would seriously undermine the strength of your position, whatever it actually is.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

God is not only our Father, He is also our Judge. If the son of a court judge had committed a horrible crime do you think it would be justice if the judge was to let his son go free just because he loves his son?

This is a reasonable argument.

I mean how does this serve justice for the victimes of his sons crime especially if his son isn’t sorry for committing the crime in the first place and if the victims were also children of the same judge? Would it be loving for the judge to exclude their right to justice? Would that be fair? God allows the suffering in Hell not because He doesn’t love the soul but because He loves all souls equally and those souls that did the right thing deserve justice.

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?

Yes and no. What is signified by them going to buy more oil is mans foolishness in thinking they have the means to escape God’s justice. Notice in the parable the 5 foolish virgins didn’t say they were sorry to the bridegroom for being late and unprepared; on the contrary they told Him he should let them in, as if they deserved to be there even though they were late and unprepared. They had no respect for the bridegroom whatsoever.

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?

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?

Do these details suggest that they really chose their damnation?

Thank you for your insights.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes and No. The Church is the pillar and bullwork of all truth and the Bible is the truth because it was produced by the Church. The Bible can only help if the Church is there. I mean think about it. the Bible wouldnt do much good for the blind or those who cannot read. This is why God gave his creation a Church in order to teach them and preach the truth to all nations. This is why the Church must be like the truth; Universal, Holy, and One. Hence why in the creed we say we believe in One Holy Catholic Church.

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 child understood the warning and still did it anyway. Loving someone but not allowing them to freely love you isn’t love. You see you can’t take away the ability to make choice without contradicting either love or justice.

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?

If a difference in knowledge might set the stage for rebellion, where is the justice in allowing the child to proceed towards destruction when an alternate means of providing that knowledge might exist that would still allow him/her to be saved?

Is True Love not also able to be creative?

The angels didn’t have a period where the going got rough. When they were created they were given a perfect test of their freedom which came with perfect consequences. The angels are very intellegent beings. When they sinned they did so knowing exactly what it meant and what it would cost them. God IS Love itself. God is Heaven itself. When the angels chose to be seperated from God they knowingly made the choice to be beings of zero love. Now why would God deter them from making a decision they wanted to make?

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

The answer is no because God cannot give them a place which does not fit their very nature. Hell is seperated from God who is Love itself.

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?

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?

Thank you for your continued assistance.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Continued…

The fear the Bible speaks of is a holy fear. A fear that is meant to keep in our minds that God is just and that His justice will not suffer those who love injustice. Some think that they can do certain sins just because they believe they’re good 99% percent of the time and that they will go to heaven because they believe their good will outweigh their bad. Yet this would not be the mark of a good judge for God to do this, nor would it be the mark of a good person to think this way.

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?

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position or am not understanding it now.

If someone murdered your mom and you went to court would it be the mark of a good judge to let your moms killer go just because this was the killers first offence? What if the killer had a long history of being a good sameritan? Would this still justify the crime of murder? Add on top of this the fact that your moms killer isn’t sorry for the murder and said he wanted to do it, would you still advocate that the judge let him go?

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.

Now lets go a step further and say the above killer is you. Do you still believe the judge should let you go just because its you? I would hope you would be honest enough to look at the scenario and admit that the judge should lock you up and throw away the key.

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?

No they will never be released from Hell since they have denied Love itself: God. There can be no love in them becuase love is contrary to their very nature. Furthermore it wasnt until the good angels made their choice were they allowed the beatific vision: Heaven.

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?

Your example is a gross misrepresentation. The child isnt 3, the child is 18 and truly no longer loves his parents even though the parents still love the child.

I apologize for the confusion as I was attempting to further emphasize the difference in perspectives between God and ourselves rather than meaning to build upon the previous analogy.

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?

No its not possible because as stated before God will give you in this life the necessary means to be saved.

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?

I do everyday I’m alive.

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?

No extensions since God gives you the perfect amount of time to decided in this life.

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?

Have you ever had a guilty conscience? If so then you can understand how you can be a torment to yourself; plus you will in a very very small way know what the souls in Hell feel like.

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?

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

 

[jmvizanko]

If you don’t believe in God then this subject of hell is of no concern and therefore no problem for you. If there is no God there is no reward and no punishment nor is there an after life, but only annilation, non existence. So your first priority should be to investigate the reality of God.

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.

 

[sw85]

If a woman is deeply in love with her spouse, but he has fallen out of love with her, would true love dictate that she cause him to suffer or merely that she suffer his rejection in silence? Which attitude might have the best chance of eventually having the husband reciprocate her love?

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.

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 quite sensible, but is it true that eternal torment serves a purpose? If a one-time touching of a hot stove were to cause one agony for the rest of his/her days would it serve the same purpose that a warning shock might have served?

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.

Assuming that the one who rejects God does so on the principle of not understanding him, or for reasons based on a deep-seated belief that God was not loving, would such a one still merit eternal torment in your eyes?

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.

Have you ever known anyone, whom you loved, who has rejected God for any reason? Did you continue to love them or did you feel at peace anticipating the full measure of the suffering they were destined to endure?

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

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.

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.

 

[jmvizanko]

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.

If you have access to the material “showing them the true faith,” and you don’t think its true and you can give the reasons why, how is that “refusing” to see the true Catholic faith? I’ll say it for the 20th time in this thread, you can not choose what you think is true or not.

And I don’t expect to go to heaven if your religion is correct, because, to put this as nicely as possible, your god will be an infinite jerk to me, based entirely on something I didn’t choose. If there is a god and a heaven, I expect him to be much more fair, just, and understanding than what he is per Christianity.

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.

Well I’ve never seen the evidence, but this particular thread certainly isn’t the place for it. I’m very acquainted with the classical arguments for a god’s existence, but I’m not familiar with the next step in Christian apologetics, why your god.

I think that the geographic regions of the world that are different religions proves that people aren’t completely free to choose what they believe. Otherwise you would see a more uniform Christian presence around the globe. People would be seeking and finding the “right” answer, instead of just assuming the religion that surrounds them. Unless you are going to tell me that all the people in say, Saudi Arabia, are just inherently more evil, because they collectively make the “choice” of unbelief to an extremely high percentage.

And I think its the other way around with having personal reasons. They find those reasons or learn those reasons to support what they already believe. Not all of them of course, but how many people that are raised a religion really step back, consider all religions equally, and then make the adult choice to believe what they were raised to believe? Your average 7 year old Catholic can’t explain the fine-tuning argument. They just take it all on faith, collecting subjective personal reasons like coincidence etc, and if they ever explore all the arguments later, of course their bias is going to play into it. Of course that’s all a generalization, as people do change faiths. I left Catholicism mid church when it hit me that the only reason I believed it was because I was raised to.

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?

I am not saying punishment is a bad thing. I think punishment is important, both in this life and if there is a next. But punishment needs to be proportional and fair. The two big reason why hell is unjust is because it is infinite, and because people can go there if they were unlucky enough to think the wrongs things about the unknowable were true.

 

[jmvizanko]

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

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.

Without God there is no ground, for anything. Logic, Reason, Knowledge, all philosophies apart from God fall into the infinite nothing.

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

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

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?”

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

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

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

 

[jmvizanko]

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?

I’m not saying free will isn’t free, I’m just saying that it at least on some level, if not entirely, does not extend to specifying what you think is true. Could you honestly choose right now to sincerely think that Christianity is not true?