Explain the justice of hell.

[clmowry]

Fact is what can we repeated by others on an objective basis, often using the scientific method. Example: People all over the world can freeze water at the same universal temperature, assuming consistent atmospheric pressure, etc

So you limit Fact to the observable physical sciences, there can be in your mind, no philosophical, moral, or theological fact or truth?

Chuck

 

[steve_b]

Might there not be those who have broken commandments, are not sorry for having done so, and yet would not choose to reside in Hell for any reason?

You’re describing someone who doesn’t want consequences for their actions. And we know that world doesn’t exist.
J:

Here is a case in point: An individual may choose not to believe in God (please note I am using the word “choose” in this instance, while recognizing that many make no such choice) based on an inability to reconcile certain Biblical matters. Now, given that he may no longer be able to keep the first commandment, and no longer willing to keep the 2nd and 3rd, how might such a one ever claim to be sorry for these breaches? Assuming a moderately good life thereafter, how might God rule on this? Does God allow moderates into Purgatory who have broken his first 3 commandments?

Actually I think people do make the choice. The reason I say that, we’re all made to the image and likeness of God. Therefore, God already prewired us to be disposed to belief in Him. iow, God stacked the deck in His favor

People who don’t want God in their lives

do so because it’s inconvenient. It means a superior being is over them and will judge all their actions, and there are consequences for that. That takes away the notion of being masters of their own universe, and making their own rules, or remaking rules they want to remake, which have eternal consequences. It’s kinda like a child saying to someone in authority, “you’re not the boss of me” …true?

or they create for themselves, a god they can manipulate. That’s an idol.
J:

Especially consider this in light of Jesus’ disdain for the lukewarm and his dire warning that he will fail to acknowledge before his father any who fail to acknowledge him on Earth.

That’s true.

If for example that person says, all this is a bunch of bunk. None of that stuff is real. He doesn’t know that for sure, but tells himself it is so, because it’s important for that to be real because they don’t want to think God really exists and there are eternal consequences to their actions. iow it’s just inconvenient to think God exists. Because of obstinancy, he won’t know for sure he’s right or wrong until he dies but then it is too late. If he is right, and there is no God, he won’t know he was right because when he dies he’s dead for all eternity. But if he is wrong, holy smokes!!!
J:

But are they not confusing in their sheer variety?

Consider the sermon on the mount. Does Jesus not claim several means of entering his kingdom, none of which appear to hinge on other specifics? If so, are those who are merely “poor in spirit” to gain the kingdom of Heaven regardless of any other action or outlook?

How does one go about obtaining this spiritual poverty?

One way is to not take the sermon on the mount out of context of the deliverer.

 

[Searcher360]

So you limit Fact to the observable physical sciences, there can be in your mind, no philosophical, moral, or theological fact or truth?

Chuck

Truth and fact aren’t the same thing.

And no, I do not think there is currently, nor is there likely to be, theological fact. Opinion, faith and hope? Absolutely. Fact? Well, there’s that little problem of no objective proof.

Morality is also not a fact. It is a state of being and mindset. To me, pointless violence is intrinsically wrong, but to the Maori tribe there is glory in combat. Who is right?

The very nature of philosophy, theology & morality precludes such from being fact. The failure of many religiously inspired persons to understand this has led to incredible violence and suffering over the centuries.

 

[clmowry]

Truth and fact aren’t the same thing.

And no, I do not think there is currently, nor is there likely to be, theological fact. Opinion, faith and hope? Absolutely. Fact? Well, there’s that little problem of no objective proof.

Morality is also not a fact. It is a state of being and mindset. To me, pointless violence is intrinsically wrong, but to the Maori tribe there is glory in combat. Who is right?

The very nature of philosophy, theology & morality precludes such from being fact. The failure of many religiously inspired persons to understand this has led to incredible violence and suffering over the centuries.

Doesnt’t this position effectively end your search before it starts?

Chuck

 

[Called_by_Name]

I am humbled by the knowledge and insight that has been shared in answering this initial inquiry; yet I still dare to offer the following simple analogy (knowing that it is not a perfect one and begging helpful critique!):

It’s my understanding that nothing unholy is ABLE (as opposed to ‘allowed’) to be in heaven. In trying to better understand this, I have come to think of God’s holy, loving presence as burning with something akin to a pure, white-hot heat that is intolerable to be near if one lacks His sanctifying grace. Throughout our lives God continually gifts us with various means of growing in grace; we either gratefully accept them or shrug them off. If we die lacking a sufficient “asbestos suit” of grace, it is not that God is barring us from approaching Him; rather our doing so is intolerable for US. He cannot change who He is; we are the ones who can change, through His grace, freely offered to all.

 

[steve_b]

I am humbled by the knowledge and insight that has been shared in answering this initial inquiry; yet I still dare to offer the following simple analogy (knowing that it is not a perfect one and begging helpful critique!):

It’s my understanding that nothing unholy is ABLE (as opposed to ‘allowed’) to be in heaven. In trying to better understand this, I have come to think of God’s holy, loving presence as burning with something akin to a pure, white-hot heat that is intolerable to be near if one lacks His sanctifying grace. Throughout our lives God continually gifts us with various means of growing in grace; we either gratefully accept them or shrug them off. If we die lacking a sufficient “asbestos suit” of grace, it is not that God is barring us from approaching Him; rather our doing so is intolerable for US. He cannot change who He is; we are the ones who can change, through His grace, freely offered to all.

I like the analogy.

 

[jmvizanko]

How is a basic understanding of anything adequate? By definition, a basic understanding lacks deep understanding.

You don’t have to be an expert in every facet of something to understand the basic summary of it.

It isn’t fair that anyone should get into Heaven at all, so this issue is rather moot.

Well even assuming that nobody should get into Heaven (although I can’t imagine why a being would create a bunch of beings that he knew would all deserve to be unforgiven forever in hell by default), it doesn’t change the fact that he does let some people in according to what you believe. And the reasons that he does or does not is what we are talking about.

 

[SonCatcher]

You don’t have to be an expert in every facet of something to understand the basic summary of it.

Do you mean like the blind men and the elephant?

Each of them had a basic understanding of what an elephant is, yet no two of them could agree on any aspect.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not at all. Life deteriorates in our fallen world. Death is a kind of grace in that regard. Can you imagine growing up in 18 years, living productively for the next 45 or so and then being in a nursing home for the rest of time?

Certainly better options might exist than these two extremes: to live eternally in infirmity or to die violently while watching one’s entire family be hacked to death by blunt swords at God’s behest?

Also, how many of those murdered in this way might have been able to force themselves to love the god of their death long enough to have been allowed entry into Heaven?

In a discussion with Abraham, God agreed to spare the entire city of Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous people. I’m guessing that was a fairly small percentage.

When, in reality, has one ever found a town in which all save 10 agree on a given course of action? What of the women and children? How many of these might realistically have been in full consent of the practice of child sacrifice?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

That supposition is not compatible with Christian doctrine. :sad_yes:

A pity.

 

[Searcher360]

The Higgs boson fits in this category, too (at least for the time being). That does not negate the theory that inspires people to look for it.

Faith is stronger than “belief” or “hope” (in the modern English sense). For the one with faith, it is substantive. It is evidence. It is fact.

Yet, if God revealed himself in that way (which would be quite theatrical to my mind), each person would have no choice but to believe in Him. Where is the freedom in that?

Your analogy to the Higgs boson makes my point. Right now it is viewed as merely theoretical. Is it not the same with religion to an extent? The Higgs may be proved or disproved. Can we say the same of modern religions? Are they not all essentially opinion and hope? I need look no further than the myriad of competing & mutually exclusive beliefs across the world for evidence.

I did find your comments on freedom interesting. As I interpret the postings here we really don’t have freedom. Live life in the approved way. Or else. No second chances, no opportunity to change. Nothing. Many of the well meaning posters here make God out to be cruel and vindictive, qualities I decline to attribute to an almighty. Still don’t see the logic in hidden truths, stories, resurrections and more, especially since the essential underpinnings of most modern religions came about in a time before science, literacy and anything approaching modern civilization. This is not, to me, mere coincidence. Superstition born of a primitive time and wholly different era does not translate so well into the post 1850 or so world.

Still, I do do believe in God and continue the search for a faith which resonates as both true and logical. Much appreciate the discussions here. Aren’t many opportunities for such outside the net!

 

[Searcher360]

Doesnt’t this position effectively end your search before it starts?

Chuck

My doubts don’t end my search, but expand them. I realize I will never find absolute evidence of truth or fact. But, I nevertheless continue the search for something that resonates with me as right. I am perhaps a bit envious of those who a firm faith. I either feel it or I don’t. This isn’t a conscious decision. It just is.

For me to embrace a faith I have to first believe it and for that I personally need some evidence beyond ancient writings which cite pretty much to each other in a rather circular manner.

I kinda like the Native American philosophy of live in peace with oneself, nature, the community and world. Don’t take more than you need, be self reliant and of good heart. Keep it simple. I don’t need buildings, rites, superstition and man made rules to feel God. I look at the wonders of the universe, the sheer size of it on the macro & micro scale and totality of life’s circumstances and feel there is something more. What that something is, however, remains to be seen and experience. Perhaps we’re nothing more than a grand “Sims” computer simulation!

 

[SonCatcher]

Certainly better options might exist than these two extremes: to live eternally in infirmity or to die violently while watching one’s entire family be hacked to death by blunt swords at God’s behest?

I was writing of death in general, not particular military campaigns.

When, in reality, has one ever found a town in which all save 10 agree on a given course of action? What of the women and children? How many of these might realistically have been in full consent of the practice of child sacrifice?

I’m just reporting. However, since every doorstep in those towns was a child’s grave (they prohibited building a house otherwise), it seems likely the entire community was complicit.

 

[SonCatcher]

Your analogy to the Higgs boson makes my point. Right now it is viewed as merely theoretical. Is it not the same with religion to an extent? The Higgs may be proved or disproved. Can we say the same of modern religions? Are they not all essentially opinion and hope? I need look no further than the myriad of competing & mutually exclusive beliefs across the world for evidence.

Yet, regardless of whether Higgs is determined or not, there will be something that is still withheld from our scientific understanding of the cosmos. Something which may yet unravel the current understanding. It is mystery.

I did find your comments on freedom interesting. As I interpret the postings here we really don’t have freedom. Live life in the approved way. Or else. No second chances, no opportunity to change. Nothing. Many of the well meaning posters here make God out to be cruel and vindictive, qualities I decline to attribute to an almighty.

Odd - I am sure the other posters did not intend what you interpret. You seem to think, however, that a convicted felon, brought before the court for sentencing, should be able to suddenly “repent” and be set free.

Still don’t see the logic in hidden truths, stories, resurrections and more, especially since the essential underpinnings of most modern religions came about in a time before science, literacy and anything approaching modern civilization. This is not, to me, mere coincidence. Superstition born of a primitive time and wholly different era does not translate so well into the post 1850 or so world.

Science, literacy and modern civilization were fostered by the Christian religion. The very purpose of science is to discover the hidden truths of this world. Literacy cannot be separated from stories. Modern civilization did rise from the ashes of earlier civilizations.

Still, I do do believe in God and continue the search for a faith which resonates as both true and logical. Much appreciate the discussions here. Aren’t many opportunities for such outside the net!

I am glad to have helped. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t think I said the bible is combination of truths, half truths and outright misrepresentations.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Is the bible a book of commands? The only commands I know of in the OT are the Ten Commandments. The only command I know of in the NT is the command to celebrate the Eucharist - The Lord’s Evening Meal. There may be others I can’t think of at the moment, but the bible is not merely a book of commands. It is believed to be God’s Revelation to the human race. What the means is God was not merely telling the authors of the bible what they should and shouldn’t do, but He was revealing his very nature. The authors of the bible on occasion intentionally record misunderstandings concerning God’s Revelation. Why would God want them to do that? The reason being they were as human as we are, and faced the same struggles and difficulties, they had the same human fragility we do, and sometimes their relationship with God was good and sometimes it wasn’t. While the bible is God’s Revelation, it was also written to tell us others who followed God had the same experiences we do, and doubted, struggled and misunderstood as we do to give us hope - the hope that God is always there and does not give up on us. We can identify with people in the bible and have a common denominator with them. Who could identify with someone who is always right, always does the right thing, and writes a record of it? Someone like that would get on your nerves.

Would not the problem with this approach be that the Bible may then be taken to mean whatever one so wishes? One might attribute God’s condemnation of homosexuals and his dictates that they be killed to be literally God’s true commands, or one might consider them an exaggeration of a suggestion made on God’s behalf and later attributed to him. If we are to consider that God really does not appear to concern himself about how we interpret his meanings (Jesus’ mild manner might suggest God would really not approve of such conduct or his avowal that all of the laws in the Old Testament should be upheld might suggest the reverse), how might one be said to be even able to grow closer to him? Is not any growth in that direction necessarily the mere growing in attachment to one’s own idea of God? What if the real thing is quite different? Quite as savage as in his OT writings, as the promise of Hell for unbelievers still suggests?

Perhaps, if it was the only picture they had. And in this day and age who knows what modern technology and forensics could do with it in an attempt to find the child?

My point being, if the matter were urgent, would one purposefully choose a caricature to serve as a representative for the real thing?

The operative word being ‘outline.’ A dedicated teacher wouldn’t stand over pupils and tell them exactly what to write in class, or in an exam. A dedicated teacher guides their pupils through the lesson without actually telling them the answer, because they want them to work out the answer for themselves to develop cognitive functioning and higher thinking skills. As children get older, they need less in terms of clear direction than children who are much younger. To illustrate - did Jesus not teach in parables? Was the purpose of these parables not to make people think rather than just spell it out for them?

Perhaps their thinking was of interest to him, but was that their true reason? Additionally, were the parables to unite? Were they to illustrate clear principles? Or did Jesus, himself, not explain their purpose when pressed on the subject?

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Those who have will be given more, and they will have an abundance. As for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables.

The difficulty for one such as myself is that I may not approach Jesus’ words with the assumption that what he was about is beyond reproach. Instead, I am necessarily troubled when I read the words of a purported god of love claiming to speak in confusing terms so as to purposefully keep the masses in darkness. While this might have a grandiose purpose, it seems further troubling still that this same god would then have such a harsh penalty for disobedience applied in the end.

How is one to have a deep respect, abiding love, implicit trust, or, indeed, any form of relationship with a deity that claims to be conspiring against the one’s own ability to understand him? To what purpose?

Perhaps God is adequately self-sufficient so as to not need much company in Heaven? How is one to argue with such a thing?

It is a fact that clear and precise orders from top army generals have been misinterpreted and misunderstood, which consequently lead to many unnecessary deaths. Anyone who has studied wars or military history will tell you that.

Given this difficulty is a general who is truly concerned about the welfare of his men more or less likely to ensure that future directives are understood clearly and properly followed?

One can consider whatever image of God one chooses. Belief involves choice. If everything could be irrevocably proven, one would no longer need to make choices. As a Catholic, I believe Jesus was the Incarnate God. I don’t think he was sloppy, disinterested, preoccupied or naive, and I think he would have made a good husband. :yup:

I am afraid that my own assessments might differ, but I appreciate your offering an insight into your own faith. It has been overall a positive experience.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The scenario of the child who has rejected the father is described in the Bible. You are not familiar with the parable of the Prodigal Son? Take a look at the Gospel of Luke chapter 15 verses11-32.

The door is never locked, it is always open. The moment you turn to the Lord you are embraced. That is all it takes, the healing of the relationship then begins as long as the prodigal son continues to desire it.

Yes, the image of the Prodigal son does seem compellingly optimistic…alas the promise of eternal hellfire for those who do not conform does not.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

When you put an ice cube tray in the freezer, you have faith that the water it contains will freeze. Impurities or malfunction may well cause disappointment.

Actually, might this be better described as an expectation, rather than faith? Is not faith a belief that is not based on proof?

The Higgs boson fits in this category, too (at least for the time being). That does not negate the theory that inspires people to look for it.

Except that might not tests exist to determine the extant of the Higgs boson? In matters of faith, what such tests might exist?

Faith is stronger than “belief” or “hope” (in the modern English sense). For the one with faith, it is substantive. It is evidence. It is fact.

Yet, if God revealed himself in that way (which would be quite theatrical to my mind), each person would have no choice but to believe in Him. Where is the freedom in that?

Why should one suppose this would matter? Is God not determined to reveal himself in the end regardless?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You’re describing someone who doesn’t want consequences for their actions. And we know that world doesn’t exist.

Actually, what I was asking was if an individual might exist who had not explicitly chosen Hell, but who had, due to disbelief, broken commandments related to that belief. Let us make the claim that one chooses to disbelieve. Has he not already broken the first commandment as well as made certain that the next two will surely not be followed? What part of this behavior has lent credibility to the claim he has necessarily chosen Hell?

Would not such an individual immediately discover the error of his choice should he come face to face with God in death? Why then would such a one wish to persist in his sin as is often claimed to be the case?

Actually I think people do make the choice. The reason I say that, we’re all made to the image and likeness of God. Therefore, God already prewired us to be disposed to belief in Him. iow, God stacked the deck in His favor

Might one believe that some do and some do not? Would a child raised without faith who has read through the Bible for the first time as an adult necessarily be choosing to disbelieve in God when he exclaims how unlikely the stories are to be true? Is it true that he does not want God in his life or is it more the case that he cannot fathom why people believe in him?

People who don’t want God in their lives

do so because it’s inconvenient. It means a superior being is over them and will judge all their actions, and there are consequences for that. That takes away the notion of being masters of their own universe, and making their own rules, or remaking rules they want to remake, which have eternal consequences. It’s kinda like a child saying to someone in authority, “you’re not the boss of me” …true?

or they create for themselves, a god they can manipulate. That’s an idol.

While it is possible to imagine such cases, is it not equally possible to imagine a case in which one wishes there were a god in his life, but who cannot find sufficient evidence to make it likely?

Consider the benefits belief in a loving god affords the one:

1. There is common community with those with a common purpose and outlook.
2. There is the assurance that suffering has meaning and that it is noble.
3. There is support in times of difficulty and a means of alleviating anxiety through hope and prayer.
4. There is an anticipated reward for a life well lived and a hopeful rejuvenation after a life of infirmity.

How many might be considered to be against such things willingly? How many might prefer to suffer in silence? To remain disconnected? To live without hope? To endure without reward?

That’s true.

If for example that person says, all this is a bunch of bunk. None of that stuff is real. He doesn’t know that for sure, but tells himself it is so, because it’s important for that to be real because they don’t want to think God really exists and there are eternal consequences to their actions. iow it’s just inconvenient to think God exists. Because of obstinancy, he won’t know for sure he’s right or wrong until he dies but then it is too late. If he is right, and there is no God, he won’t know he was right because when he dies he’s dead for all eternity. But if he is wrong, holy smokes!!!

Is not this difficulty even greater for the skeptic? Consider that for the believer there is only the choice between God and disbelief, but for the skeptic there are a myriad of gods from which to choose. An expression of disbelief in the wrong one might prove disastrous.

One way is to not take the sermon on the mount out of context of the deliverer.

Touche.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I am humbled by the knowledge and insight that has been shared in answering this initial inquiry; yet I still dare to offer the following simple analogy (knowing that it is not a perfect one and begging helpful critique!):

It’s my understanding that nothing unholy is ABLE (as opposed to ‘allowed’) to be in heaven. In trying to better understand this, I have come to think of God’s holy, loving presence as burning with something akin to a pure, white-hot heat that is intolerable to be near if one lacks His sanctifying grace. Throughout our lives God continually gifts us with various means of growing in grace; we either gratefully accept them or shrug them off. If we die lacking a sufficient “asbestos suit” of grace, it is not that God is barring us from approaching Him; rather our doing so is intolerable for US. He cannot change who He is; we are the ones who can change, through His grace, freely offered to all.

This is a particularly useful analogy inasmuch as it helps better articulate the position of those who hold that Hell is less of a choice than it is a logical consequence.

Might I be permitted to ask, however, what prevents God from providing later protection to those who have died unprepared? Why would he prefer to merely observe their torment?

Is it not somewhat like a parent providing a child a life-jacket on a boating trip that the child subsequently refuses? However, should the child fall overboard would the parent sit idle having assured himself that since the child refused the safety vest her subsequent drowning is none of his concern?

How many might truly suggest that a child who freely chose to reject the safety vest would be perfectly happy to drown as a result even if previously warned of the possibility?

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, might this be better described as an expectation, rather than faith? Is not faith a belief that is not based on proof?

semantics

Except that might not tests exist to determine the extant of the Higgs boson? In matters of faith, what such tests might exist?

The test is the life of the individual.

Why should one suppose this would matter? Is God not determined to reveal himself in the end regardless?

Stimulus for the tested individual.