Explain the justice of hell.

[Contarini]

And if all hell is is separation from a god that would send people there to begin with, I won’t miss him. After all, I’m living a happy life without even thinking he exists. Probably the only thing that would suck about it would be the fact that if your religion is true, my wife won’t be in hell with me.

Unless you are suggesting that separation from god in hell is somehow torturous even if it isn’t in this life. In which case it still stands that its infinitely unjust and cruel.

So what’s the alternative?

We believe God fills the universe. We believe that there is no physical place where He is not, but there is a moral/spiritual place where He is not (in His life-sustaining capacity), and this is called hell.

You don’t think He exists, but that doesn’t mean you live without Him. People lived by breathing oxygen long before they had any idea what oxygen was. If a person who didn’t believe oxygen existed went into a space with no oxygen, they would die. The fact that they didn’t recognize the difference wouldn’t keep it from existing. And in fact they would know the difference even if they didn’t know what to call it.

Edwin

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Correct. But it isn’t a valid “escape plan” as people have a tendency of dying before they are “ready.”

Ah, my apologies. I understood your meaning to suggest that they might escape Hell after so arriving.

As I wrote: by living according to those principles which they are aware of. For example: a conscientious agnostic becomes acutely aware of the damage done to marriages and spouses by infidelity. He/she therefore strives to remain faithful in order to protect his/her spouse. It has nothing to do for this person with his ability to “not get caught.”

Naturally, there is a lot more to it than fidelity in marriage, but I hope you get the picture.

Yes, I see your meaning.

Finding this way, for a nonbeliever, is rather like walking in the dark. It can take a lot of stumbling to find the way. Therefore, the value of faith, for the believer, is that he/she can see the way due to well-formed teaching and the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

Why might one consider “belief” or “disbelief” of a given deity to have an impact on an individual? Is not he/she either good or evil regardless?

Or does God hold back his Holy Spirit unless one believes in him? If so, why?

I think that was addressed to His followers.

Might a former follower come to disbelieve? If so, what then?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Your error, my friend, is that you do not know what hell is.

If you gave a party and invited all of your friends because you want to be with them, but some of them do not want to come to the party, would you force them to?

Of course not, because that would not be love. Neither will God force us to be with Him if we choose not to. If we decide that we do not want to be with God, He will let us have our way and be separated from Him.

Hell is nothing more than separation from God of those who wish to be separated from Him.

This is a reasonable position, but is it supported by Jesus’ interpretation of Hell?

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

Why would a benevolent being feel the need to instill fear in those who simply do not wish to be with him? Why not instead inspire them with love?

 

[SonCatcher]

Except its not an educated “decision.” If you hear the Gospel and you honestly think its ridiculous, how is that a choice? Wouldn’t it be much better if nobody spread the Gospel then, and all those Eskimos for example don’t have the opportunity to be damned?

Ah, but what if the “Gospel” as you understand it does not resonate as true or otherwise with a person’s innermost thoughts? The problem with your position, at least to me is that it presumes all other lines of thought are invalid, against the will of God or just plain wrong. To so argue would be to place absolute credence in a series of writings drafted from a few hundred to several hundred or more years after the death of Christ. To me this seems a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time believing an almighty God would chose one particular brand or sect over all others regardless of sincerity or one’s hard wired brain chemistry and/or DNA. Not logical, at least not to me.

Apparently you do not understand what I meant by “so as to understand.” One who thinks it’s ridiculous doesn’t. Believe it or not, there are those who do come to understand and hate it.

The chances are better and rewards greater for those who accept the Gospel, therefore, the Eskimos are better off for being evangelized.

Searcher, I already addressed your statement about other lines of thought.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Ah, but what if the “Gospel” as you understand it does not resonate as true or otherwise with a person’s innermost thoughts? The problem with your position, at least to me is that it presumes all other lines of thought are invalid, against the will of God or just plain wrong. To so argue would be to place absolute credence in a series of writings drafted from a few hundred to several hundred or more years after the death of Christ. To me this seems a bit of a stretch. I have a hard time believing an almighty God would chose one particular brand or sect over all others regardless of sincerity or one’s hard wired brain chemistry and/or DNA. Not logical, at least not to me.

Precisely the problem. This difficulty is paramount.

 

[SonCatcher]

This is a reasonable position, but is it supported by Jesus’ interpretation of Hell?

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

Why would a benevolent being feel the need to instill fear in those who simply do not wish to be with him? Why not instead inspire them with love?

Biblical fear is different from what you are thinking. It is the respect one should have for authority, not cowardice.

 

[SonCatcher]

Why might one consider “belief” or “disbelief” of a given deity to have an impact on an individual? Is not he/she either good or evil regardless?

It is not so much belief of God that is at issue as it is belief in the message He sent. God taught us how to live. Modern science confirms the destructiveness of behaviors long condemned in the Bible and by the Church (e.g. adultery, alcoholism). It also confirms the benefit of the virtues commanded therein (e.g. forgiveness, self-giving). I am not referring here to any religious practices, only virtues and faults.

Or does God hold back his Holy Spirit unless one believes in him? If so, why?

The Holy Spirit is only promised to the Baptized. However, since God is not bound by the sacraments, He can do anything He wants.

Might a former follower come to disbelieve? If so, what then?

One might. The Church does not render judgement on those because it is impossible to know their internal struggle. However, no human person is declared to be in Hell. Even Judas’ ultimate fate is unknown.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

A theme I have noticed with those who oppose Hell is that they believe one cannot know God without knowing everything about Him and how He works and that one cannot choose the right choice without first being able to properly experience the consequences that accompany making the wrong choices. The conclusion being that God could never be said to be just unless these criteria have been met.

Do you not believe it important to know as much as possible about an entity with which one is planning to exist for eternity? What may escape your notice is that this same criteria has been applied to avoid making an erroneous commitment to any of a number of other (presumably false) gods. If the One True God is to be found, is it not likely that his case might necessarily withstand the greatest scrutiny? Further, must it strike one as odd that, as in an Earthly romance, one wishes to know as much as possible about one’s intended spouse? Is this not especially necessary if there is a rumor of violence that surrounds his/her past? A hint of the sadistic amidst allegations of pure love? Might one not wish to uncover the truth prior to the inescapable commitment? If so, where is the wrong in it?

The problem with this position is it denies the reality that exists and that we profess in our daily actions within our daily lives. It denies that we CAN have a perfect relationship with someone without knowing everything about them. It denies that we CAN make the right choice without having to first experience the consequences that occur from making the wrong choice. It denies that sufficient knowledge is just that; sufficient and that sufficient knowledge does not entail knowing everything or experiencing everything first hand.

This is a fair point, but might I correct your statement to properly read: “…we CAN have a very good relationship…”? After all, might not, in order for the relationship to be perfect, it be required to exist beyond the mere image of the relationship, but to instead reside in what it actually is?

I can say that I know my mother, and that I truly love my mother even though I do not know everything about her. Likewise I can choose to not commit a crime because I do not want to go to jail even though I have never experienced what it is like to be in jail. Saying I cannot truly love or know my mother just because I don’t know her secrets, her thoughts or her heart is ridiculous. Saying I would have to experience jail in order for me to make the informed decision that I wouldn’t want to go to jail is ridiculous. Saying that I should be exempt from the consequence that result from committing crimes because of a lack of a proper experience with jail is also ridiculous. While prison is meant to reform criminals, it is also meant to punish and keep criminals out of society; hence why we have life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Good examples. In the case of your mother, however, is it true that you have a perfect relationship with her? Is it not more accurate to suggest you have a very good relationship with the entity you believe your mother to be? Supposing you chanced upon a record of your mother’s actions that occurred prior to your conception, which suggested that she had been involved in violent acts. Would you not strive to understand these details further? Especially since, presumably, they would live in stark contrast to the reality you have learned to appreciate?

Is such not so different a case with God and his Old Testament antics? Is not God therein depicted as brutish, vengeful, and cruel? Is it not important to one who wishes to have a real relationship with him to get to the bottom of these disparities so as to necessarily move ahead?

Would the One True God be potentially satisfied with anything less from those allegedly devoted to him?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Hell is a life sentence without the possibility of parole for those souls who choose not to reform their ways after receiving SUFFICENT KNOWLEDGE and GRACE from GOD to do so. I would no more defend the souls in Hell than I would a criminal serving a life sentence who told me He understood his crime, was not sorry for it, and would not change his ways no matter what opportunities were given to him.

Since this is almost never the position of a real convict facing a life-long prison sentence (aside from the occasional psychopath), why would it be expected of a soul condemned to Hell? Unless his personality were flash-frozen at the instant of death, but then would he not cease to be an individual and his punishment cease to have meaning?

Furthermore to say that we can produce anything good, separate from God who is goodness itself is a fallacy in the Catholic Faith. So when you say "why does God exhibit the same behavior as an imperfect being ", what you mistakenly assume is that the good we have done has been because of our own power when quite the opposite is the case. On the contrary, anything good we imperfect beings do, we do because we have imitated a perfect being: God. God is the source of all good things. This means He is the source of all true love, all true justice, all true holiness, etc. If we so happen to express or perform acts of true love, true justice, true holiness, etc. it is only because we have taken them from God who is their source and not vice versa.

When a parent loves perfectly they do so in imitation of God. When parents disciplines and punish correctly they do so in imitation of God. So, when you say a parent is just but God however is not because he doesn’t go above and beyond what good parents do in this life who are only good parents because they imitate God, then what you’re stating is that God is not good because He does not go above and beyond Himself.

OK

Lastly giving a bunch of what if scenarios where individuals are being punished for things they could not avoid or did through no fault of their own, is useless when discussing the type of Hell Catholics believe in since we do not believe souls go to Hell for no fault of their own. Also stating your own life experiences is likewise useless in this discussion since none of us can confirm or deny anyone’s true intentions.

Fair enough.

With that said I’m making the choice to end my envolvment in this thread.

@Jelrak TB: After going over the idea of sharing my personal experiences with God I have decided to retract my previous offer of sharing them. Right now I do not believe they will benifit you for two reasons; 1. I feel I would not be able to correclty describe them to you and 2. because the experiences I’ve had have been given to me by God to suit my individual needs which are and will be different from your own.

I understand your position completely, even though I wish you might reconsider your choice to end your involvement here. You may consider your task hopeless in educating the world’s skeptics, but kindly consider that it might be precisely because of such a sentiment that said skeptics have remained as such–for who truly wishes to talk us through our confusion?

Whatever you ultimately decide, I wish you well and feel I have certainly benefited from your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[Jelrak_TB]

So what’s the alternative?

We believe God fills the universe. We believe that there is no physical place where He is not, but there is a moral/spiritual place where He is not (in His life-sustaining capacity), and this is called hell.

You don’t think He exists, but that doesn’t mean you live without Him. People lived by breathing oxygen long before they had any idea what oxygen was. If a person who didn’t believe oxygen existed went into a space with no oxygen, they would die. The fact that they didn’t recognize the difference wouldn’t keep it from existing. And in fact they would know the difference even if they didn’t know what to call it.

Edwin

This is a good analogy, but might it be permitted to add that the oxygen’s source would have to be a benevolent being who loved his creations very much to given them this oxygen? Now to complete this analogy, might one consider that he is perplexed to note that certain ones among them might be found to be holding their breaths in an attempt to live without oxygen? But is his response to contain those who pass out from lack of oxygen in an area where he has cut off the supply completely, forcing them to exist in such a state for eternity, a loving one?

He has given what they apparently wanted, but was it what they really wanted?

 

[minkymurph]

Except, is it not strange that God would choose to employ a “lying” spirit in order to provoke Ahab’s doom? How might a spirit in Heaven volunteer to lie?

At least that is what Micaih claims to have happened…

When you put it that way, yes it is strange. A spirit in heaven should not be able to lie. They should be incapable of it. If this passage is telling us a spirit in heaven placed lies in the mouths of prophets, then it can be argued the spirit was capable of lying. Why would the author of Kings want us to believe a spirit in heaven can lie? Is that what author is trying to communicate?

Does not the passage use the word ‘fool’ rather than lie?’ Is lying and fooling someone the same thing? Did the original text read lie? I suppose it could be argued that is nit picking. I’m not really into formulating a belief, or rejecting a belief based on one word in a passage of scripture. To me, what the author intends to communicate in this passage of scripture is Ahab met with destruction because he would not follow the council of the prophet of God. That’s a consistent theme of the OT. When I read scripture I tend to look at the overall story - in terms of what is the theme, what is happening what is the author driving at. The bible is a collection of books, and in the first instance I would consider who wrote the book and why. In the second instance - what is the overall theme of the book, what is it the author wants us to know? Then break it down chapter, verse and word because chapter, verse and word need to be understood in terms of the overall theme of the book and the authors intention. I don’t think the author of Kings wanted us to know spirit’s from heaven put lies in people’s mouths.

 

[minkymurph]

I suppose it was more the concept of God watching a soul headed to destruction and doing nothing to alter its course that holds my attention. Does it not seem like a parent watching a disobedient child playing in traffic?

I don’t know if you have kids, but I do. When they were small, I would have physically removed them from danger. As they got older, I altered them to danger by telling them. Now, they are still young and I still alert them to danger, but there are some things I feel they must now work out for themselves. For instance, I no longer feel the need to tell them not to touch the hot iron as this is something they should know.

When they are men, there will be other things they will have to work out for themselves. I will always be there for them, and offer advice if they ask, but mind my own business when they don’t. Now if I saw them headed for some disaster, certainly I would tell them and perhaps without being asked. However, to what extent should I go to stop them if they won’t listen? For instance, let’s say they become addicted to hard drugs. I could sign them into a clinic against their will. I could get a court order to keep them their in spite of the fact they want to leave. Some day they will have to leave and if they are still intent on taking drugs, what should I do? The only thing I could do would continue to appeal to them, tell them I’m always there if they want help to change, and hope.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Biblical fear is different from what you are thinking. It is the respect one should have for authority, not cowardice.

And yet, the word fear was used. Was “Fear your mother and father” ever a commandment?

How might one explain why one word might be used when another meaning was desired? Especially considering same was used in a warning manner?

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

Hmm…not quite as dramatic, perhaps?

 

[SonCatcher]

And yet, the word fear was used. Was “Fear your mother and father” ever a commandment?

How might one explain why one word might be used when another meaning was desired? Especially considering same was used in a warning manner?

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

Hmm…not quite as dramatic, perhaps?

It’s the closest match for the translation. Another word that presents this problem is “hope.”

In English, “hope” is a kind of nebulous, wishful thing (e.g. buying a lottery ticket and hoping you win). In the original languages, “hope” is a full expectation (e.g. you are the sole heir to a massive fortune, hoping to one day realize it).

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It is not so much belief of God that is at issue as it is belief in the message He sent. God taught us how to live. Modern science confirms the destructiveness of behaviors long condemned in the Bible and by the Church (e.g. adultery, alcoholism). It also confirms the benefit of the virtues commanded therein (e.g. forgiveness, self-giving). I am not referring here to any religious practices, only virtues and faults.

And yet in not God quite clear in his demands that we believe in him, the One True God? Is he not a jealous god who demanded the deaths of untold thousands because they believed in false gods?

Please understand my concern about not wishing to take such demands lightly.

The Holy Spirit is only promised to the Baptized. However, since God is not bound by the sacraments, He can do anything He wants.

OK.

One might. The Church does not render judgement on those because it is impossible to know their internal struggle. However, no human person is declared to be in Hell. Even Judas’ ultimate fate is unknown.

Although, if Jesus may be believed, might it not be accepted that he is in a very, very bad place all the same?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

When you put it that way, yes it is strange. A spirit in heaven should not be able to lie. They should be incapable of it. If this passage is telling us a spirit in heaven placed lies in the mouths of prophets, then it can be argued the spirit was capable of lying. Why would the author of Kings want us to believe a spirit in heaven can lie? Is that what author is trying to communicate?

Does not the passage use the word ‘fool’ rather than lie?’ Is lying and fooling someone the same thing? Did the original text read lie? I suppose it could be argued that is nit picking. I’m not really into formulating a belief, or rejecting a belief based on one word in a passage of scripture. To me, what the author intends to communicate in this passage of scripture is Ahab met with destruction because he would not follow the council of the prophet of God. That’s a consistent theme of the OT. When I read scripture I tend to look at the overall story - in terms of what is the theme, what is happening what is the author driving at. The bible is a collection of books, and in the first instance I would consider who wrote the book and why. In the second instance - what is the overall theme of the book, what is it the author wants us to know? Then break it down chapter, verse and word because chapter, verse and word need to be understood in terms of the overall theme of the book and the authors intention. I don’t think the author of Kings wanted us to know spirit’s from heaven put lies in people’s mouths.

I suppose that is a fair consideration.

My own particular concern might then be: if the author of the book of Kings might invent such concepts in order to arrive at a predetermined outcome, how is one to believe any part of the Bible given the likelihood that its other authors might be considered to do likewise?

Why would God allow his words to be mixed with falsehood and yet still presented as his own? …unless he placed a lying spirit in the mouth of his authors…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t know if you have kids, but I do. When they were small, I would have physically removed them from danger. As they got older, I altered them to danger by telling them. Now, they are still young and I still alert them to danger, but there are some things I feel they must now work out for themselves. For instance, I no longer feel the need to tell them not to touch the hot iron as this is something they should know.

When they are men, there will be other things they will have to work out for themselves. I will always be there for them, and offer advice if they ask, but mind my own business when they don’t. Now if I saw them headed for some disaster, certainly I would tell them and perhaps without being asked. However, to what extent should I go to stop them if they won’t listen? For instance, let’s say they become addicted to hard drugs. I could sign them into a clinic against their will. I could get a court order to keep them their in spite of the fact they want to leave. Some day they will have to leave and if they are still intent on taking drugs, what should I do? The only thing I could do would continue to appeal to them, tell them I’m always there if they want help to change, and hope.

Might you ever seek to forget them and lock them out of your life completely?

Is an adult on Earth viewed to be an adult when likened to God, or is he closer to being a child?

 

[SonCatcher]

And yet in not God quite clear in his demands that we believe in him, the One True God? Is he not a jealous god who demanded the deaths of untold thousands because they believed in false gods?

Please understand my concern about not wishing to take such demands lightly.

As I understand, it was not so much their beliefs but their practices (child sacrifice, immorality, etc) that earned those societies their death sentences.

Although, if Jesus may be believed, might it not be accepted that he is in a very, very bad place all the same?

Judas will forever be vilified as a traitor and thief (explanation: he is recorded as having mishandled their funds). That is a harsh punishment. In itself, that makes it “better” had he never been born.

 

[steve_b]

Is it not potentially confusing that God might speak of treating evil-doers with kindness when in reality he is instead planning for their most hideous torment after death? What else might one expect God to be planning if his words directed to mankind on Earth might have an equally different inflection in the afterlife?

Rain is a benefit…and we all need water…right? Is it given to the righteous as well as the most evil of evil doers? Yes. We wouldn’t even know of an afterlife if God hadn’t revealed it to us. Therefore, it makes sense since all are guranteed to live forever, one should pay particular attention how God wants us to act in this life
J:

Additionally, what purpose is there in God demonstrating his perfect love for good and bad individuals alike, if he does not intend to love the individuals with bad inclinations for very long?

Don’t good and bad people alike have natural consequences in this life? Just as the next life. Does that mean God doesn’t love us?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

As I understand, it was not so much their beliefs but their practices (child sacrifice, immorality, etc) that earned those societies their death sentences.

So God condemned them for child sacrifice by having their children massacred?

Judas will forever be vilified as a traitor and thief (explanation: he is recorded as having mishandled their funds). That is a harsh punishment. In itself, that makes it “better” had he never been born.

For some reason that does not seem sufficiently egregious. Besides, why make such an issue of warning about Hell if it was intended to be a hollow threat?