Explain the justice of hell.

[Contarini]

A pity.

Not all Christians agree with SonCatcher. I’m a “hopeful universalist,” myself. I think it’s possible that everyone will be saved, but I don’t think I can affirm that everyone will be.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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?

But again, that’s a straw man. Certainly many Christians think this way, but among serious Christian thinkers the positions generally range from C. S. Lewis’s “the doors of hell are locked on the inside” to outright universalism.

If it’s “too late” to be saved at some point, it’s not because God refuses to save but because the person is no longer capable of being saved.

Edwin

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not all Christians agree with SonCatcher. I’m a “hopeful universalist,” myself. I think it’s possible that everyone will be saved, but I don’t think I can affirm that everyone will be.

Edwin

Your positive sentiments are certainly appreciated.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

But again, that’s a straw man. Certainly many Christians think this way, but among serious Christian thinkers the positions generally range from C. S. Lewis’s “the doors of hell are locked on the inside” to outright universalism.

If it’s “too late” to be saved at some point, it’s not because God refuses to save but because the person is no longer capable of being saved.

Edwin

Perhaps you are right, but consider carefully whether Jesus seemingly agrees with either of those positions:

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.

In such a circumstance, seemingly Hell cannot be bolted from within since those who go there appear to descend against their singular volition.

If God were to save all, might he not have suggested as much at some point? Or is it your view that he could not for fear that all of mankind would fail to remain upright with such news?

 

[jmvizanko]

Saying it is “unfair that anyone should go to Heaven” is not quite the same as saying “God said everyone is deserving of Hell.”

The first statement comes from the fallen nature of humanity.

God created us to be with Him, however, so the second statement just isn’t so.

I am sorry you find this conversation so difficult.

I am not finding this conversation difficult. The reason you think I am is because you think that man should be blamed for being man when I think god should be blamed for holding man accountable for being man. If god created us to be with him, then he would make sure we were all with him. Instead he doesn’t give most of humanity enough reason to even think he (or at least your version of him) even exists.

 

[Called_by_Name]

True, but this analogy assumes that instructions and the like have been expressly given and understandable. Cryptic, subtle or hidden hints aren’t enough to my way of thinking. Just for once I wish God would be more direct and less mysterious or hidden. Not logical. I have trouble seeing how or why God would or should have human emotions and failings such as wrath. For that matter I can’t see why the almighty would care who eats meat on a certain day of the week. Illogical.

The Almighty doesn’t seem to proceed in a manner quite up to your exacting standards, does He? An untold number of people (some even possessing intelligence to rival yours) have found God’s efforts on our behalf to be more than adequate, but (truly no offense intended) perhaps they wanted Him to be real more than you do. It seems you try so hard not to believe! Have you ever just tried to pray something along the lines of, “God, if you are real; help me to believe”? (And note that it’s not, “Give me proof!”

I wish you the peace that comes from Christ alone.

 

[davidv]

I am not finding this conversation difficult. The reason you think I am is because you think that man should be blamed for being man when I think god should be blamed for holding man accountable for being man. If god created us to be with him, then he would make sure we were all with him. Instead he doesn’t give most of humanity enough reason to even think he (or at least your version of him) even exists.

I would offer that you perception of what “being man” is faulty. Being man is to fulfill our greatest need which to be in the presence of our creator. Sinning is not being man, it is being sub-man or even anti-man.

God is not to be blamed because an man/woman chooses to accept counterfeit happiness for the real thing.

 

[pismopal]

Nothing, but need it be a punitive difference? May one envision Mother Theresa glowing with pleasure as she imagines Hitler screaming in torment? Or might one consider her to be pleased enough to find that he might simply be distantly removed and unable to bother her?

Is not a desire for revenge on one’s foes born out of a lack of charity for their circumstance and upbringing? Why might one expect a loving god to share such a lack?

It is possible. On the other hand, is such one’s experience of reality? Are countries where atheism is in a high percentage (such as Japan and Scandinavia) overrun with murderous outbursts or does such behavior more consistently reside within the borders of theocracies (such as may be found in the Middle East and Africa)?

Is it fair to consider that one’s reason necessarily departs once a belief in God is abandoned? Does one not still wish to reside within a stable society? Does one not still value life (especially given the belief of its finite limit)? Does one not still harbor empathy and compassion? Love and positive convictions?

Is one’s sole deterrent for killing one’s neighbor a fear of God’s reprisal in Hell? Is one’s sole reason for doing good due to one’s expectation of later payment in Heaven?

Atheism does not mean that there is no God and a sincere belief in God does not mean that there is. Man seems, most men, to know what is right and wrong and this is enforced by societies laws which generally are the same. Most of these societies where life and property and freedom are respected evolved after the Christian era and changed the conscience of men. In ancient days might made right and we now know that right is right and a clear idea of what that is. IMO the murderous outbursts in the ME and Africa do not come from God but from exactly the opposite. It seems to me that their god always wants them to attack their traditional or political enemies. Their god is a hand puppet directing their own bad acts.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Atheism does not mean that there is no God and a sincere belief in God does not mean that there is.

Agreed.

Man seems, most men, to know what is right and wrong and this is enforced by societies laws which generally are the same. Most of these societies where life and property and freedom are respected evolved after the Christian era and changed the conscience of men.

Notwithstanding that the concept itself clearly predates Christianity and has arisen independently in a host of locations over time, is your suggestion that Christianity allowed for improved implementation?

In ancient days might made right…

Actually, is that not still the case in many regimes today?

…and we now know that right is right and a clear idea of what that is. IMO the murderous outbursts in the ME and Africa do not come from God but from exactly the opposite.

Fair enough, but might it not be valid for an atheist to point out that those engaging in such bloodshed actually do believe they are serving God and that he has commanded them to so act? How then are they much different from the Jews claiming the same as they invaded the Canaanites? Or the Christians during the Crusades–both of which could equally be claimed to have been politically motivated, but without also being considered God inspired would not likely have carried as much momentum?

It seems to me that their god always wants them to attack their traditional or political enemies. Their god is a hand puppet directing their own bad acts.

Is it not strange that God does not object to being used in this way? How is it that a god of love makes no efforts to avoid being portrayed as a god of hate?

 

[jmvizanko]

I would offer that you perception of what “being man” is faulty. Being man is to fulfill our greatest need which to be in the presence of our creator. Sinning is not being man, it is being sub-man or even anti-man.

You believe that every man has sinned, and that all men that follow us will also sin. So if every man that could ever exist sins, how is sin NOT part of being man?

 

[davidv]

You believe that every man has sinned,

There are at least two exceptions to the every man has sinned.

and that all men that follow us will also sin. So if every man that could ever exist sins, how is sin NOT part of being man?

Because sinning diminishes us. It makes us less human. Truth exists, whether everyone or no ones agrees with it. The truth is to be fully human one must be holy.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Almighty doesn’t seem to proceed in a manner quite up to your exacting standards, does He? An untold number of people (some even possessing intelligence to rival yours) have found God’s efforts on our behalf to be more than adequate, but (truly no offense intended) perhaps they wanted Him to be real more than you do. It seems you try so hard not to believe! Have you ever just tried to pray something along the lines of, “God, if you are real; help me to believe”? (And note that it’s not, “Give me proof!”

I wish you the peace that comes from Christ alone.

Did not Jesus’ own disciples require proof of his divinity? They lived with him and yet even they stood unconvinced after his death. Why might one alive today feel any differently? Where is the shame in requesting proof while in a receptive mindset? Would not a fair request be, “Lord, I am willing to follow you, but please provide clear proof that I am on the correct path in assessing these matters?”

Why might such a prayer continue unanswered?

Alternately, is the demand to believe without proof a fair one? Particularly if one cannot ascertain that it is God who is making this demand and not merely an individual after one’s 10% tithe?

Why is lack of skepticism considered a virtue if God provided men minds with which to think? Why might their subsequent logical confusion come with a potential penalty of eternity in Hell?

 

[davidv]

Did not Jesus’ own disciples require proof of his divinity?

I don’t believe they did. Even if they had doubts, they followed Him and did as He asked.

They lived with him and yet even they stood unconvinced after his death. Why might one alive today feel any differently?

Probably no reason. Why shouldn’t we be like them and be expected to believe what they were told by someone trustworthy?

Where is the shame in requesting proof while in a receptive mindset? Would not a fair request be, “Lord, I am willing to follow you, but please provide clear proof that I am on the correct path in assessing these matters?”

Requesting what doesn’t exist is irrational. What many demand as proof does not exist.

Why might such a prayer continue unanswered?

Prayers are always answered. Many times the answer is no, other times, it is not yet.

Alternately, is the demand to believe without proof a fair one?

No. Demanding suggests an air of superiority. God is partial to the humble.

Particularly if one cannot ascertain that it is God who is making this demand and not merely an individual after one’s 10% tithe?

Frauds do not speak for God.

Why is lack of skepticism considered a virtue if God provided men minds with which to think? Why might their subsequent logical confusion come with a potential penalty of eternity in Hell?

No such virtue exists. Confusion, unless self-inflicted, does not cause one to be in hell. Is this a strawman?

 

[Searcher360]

The Almighty doesn’t seem to proceed in a manner quite up to your exacting standards, does He? An untold number of people (some even possessing intelligence to rival yours) have found God’s efforts on our behalf to be more than adequate, but (truly no offense intended) perhaps they wanted Him to be real more than you do. It seems you try so hard not to believe! Have you ever just tried to pray something along the lines of, “God, if you are real; help me to believe”? (And note that it’s not, “Give me proof!”

I wish you the peace that comes from Christ alone.

I found your tongue in cheek response amusing and a good match to my at times sarcastic bent. And-- a good point.

Actually, I have given much thought & even prayer along these lines. I’ve had some medical issues that while modest to some seem so unfair to me that I at times am angry that such was allowed to occur. It is hard to shake the bitterness even though most of my life would be viewed as quite good, even affluent to many. I do, however, remain puzzled at the lack of any tangible proof whatsoever, that any religion is true which I admittedly need. My brain just isn’t wired to accept anything on on urgings of others. Wish I could change that, but so far that is my core. “Faith” isn’t something that comes easy to me. I need more than the writings of men to feel it.

Here’s the irony-- I do very much want to believe in something with real meaning and long for life to mean more than the hamster wheel it often appears to be. What is the earth, 4.7 billion years old with the universe over 14 billion & modern man but a blip in the screen, so to speak? Our lives are ephemeral at best . We live, we die, the world goes on. For countless generations humanity has struggled along and nearly been made extinct. In time it likely will be, probably due to our own stupidity. In short, what really matters? Does anything? I just don’t see the logic of contemporary religions as they to me seem too narrowly focused and arising from a simpler time not analogous to the modern world. Again, no insults intended, these are just the thoughts that come to mind without conscious effort. I view modern religion as inexorably arising from & tied to a primitive era, without ever having evolved to any appreciable extent. This isn’t a conclusion I am proud of or wanted to find, but the one that springs to mind.

I have come to feel that God is bigger than one any one religion. The universe is too big, too incomprehensible and too complex for mere humans to ever grasp. In short, I’ve become more spiritual and less religious, if that makes any sense. These discussions here help me to broaden my horizons and see different points of vies & experiences. For that I am much appreciative.

 

[Searcher360]

There are at least two exceptions to the every man has sinned.

Because sinning diminishes us. It makes us less human. Truth exists, whether everyone or no ones agrees with it. The truth is to be fully human one must be holy.

What puzzles me is what many consider “sin” appears to be hard wired into our DNA and brain chemistry. For example, I believe it innate for men to seek as many female partners as they are able as such is most likely to further their DNA line, while females have evolved to be more selective.

Some acts, such as rape & murder are generally acknowledged to be inherently wrong, i.e malum in se, while others are more cultural in origin. Seems odd for any one religion to claim sole truth when biology, evolution & science indicate that humans are far more varied & hard wired than many think. Of course, this doesn’t excuse ill conduct. I chose to be loyal to my spouse, for example.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Galileo was praised for his science. His only problem was in thinking that his excellent science qualified him as a theologian.

Is this accurate? If praised for his science, why might Galileo have been warned against publishing his theories by the Church* and then subsequently imprisoned for life (and denied all medical treatment) for doing so? In light of how the Church at the time was censoring Copernicus’ theories, how might Galileo’s work have been considered particularly praiseworthy given its similarity in scope?

*In fairness one must point out that he did have sympathizers within the hierarchy, but these did not constitute a majority, nor did they argue on his behalf (perhaps out of fear of an inquisition into their own beliefs) and so merely counseled Galileo to be cautious.

A secular persecution under religious pretenses. The only penalty the Church imposed on exposed “heretics” was banning them from receiving the Sacraments.

Given the inquisition was initiated, monitored, and largely carried out by the Church or its officials (indeed, only pardons could be provided by same), what secular body would have stood to gain by such tactics? Why would the Church not have simply disavowed any further trials and considered those partaking in them to be anathema?

I fail to see any problem or connection. How is religion in any way responsible for the existence of a period in time?

If the view could be taken that the Church’s refusal to allow science to contradict scripture kept scientific progress in check (and made scientists fear for their lives) then is it not reasonable to conclude that society need not have endured so long a period lacking progress as the Middle Ages?

However, in fairness, any criticism of the Church’s activities of this time period should also be weighed against its positive record of assisting in the civilizing of the barbarian tribes, tending the sick during outbreaks of disease, creating beautiful art and architecture, and conserving great swaths of literature. Additionally they must also be recognized for the establishment of the seeds that would later grow into some of the great universities.

The stated purpose of assisting those under persecution is possibly commendable. However, when secular authorities get involved the situation is ripe for abuse.

If it could be admitted fairly that the Crusades might have been the ultimate example of good intentions gone bad, could it not be equally fair to suggest that not only “secular authorities” need take the blame for all of its negative activities? After all, if the Church had disparaged the taking over of their movement by secular interests, why did the Pope of the day purposefully encourage such interests from the onset?

For clarity, however, let it be said that in my humble opinion the Crusades may have been justified not only out of fear that all of the sacred sites within the Holy Land were to be destroyed as equally as the Church of The Holy Sepulcher, but also because of the increasing threat being posed by the regimes in place. If one’s citizens were as routinely molested as were the pilgrims to the Holy Land, would not modern societies have equally declared such a war? Indeed have we not done so with our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and looming confrontation with Iran?

When your primary source of history is moderated, that’s what you get.

Is not all history moderated? Where might one find an impartial account of history without necessarily reading as many texts as possible and drawing one’s own conclusion?

:tsktsk: There is only a problem with embryonic stem cell use because they are only obtained through murder. Cord blood (pluripotent) and other types of stem cells are encouraged for use.

For now, I would agree: there is no need for such controversial usage when the more benignly rendered stem cells appear to have the greater chance of harboring curative powers.

 

[davidv]

What puzzles me is what many consider “sin” appears to be hard wired into our DNA and brain chemistry. For example, I believe it innate for men to seek as many female partners as they are able as such is most likely to further their DNA line, while females have evolved to be more selective.

It is also apparant that in your case the appearance of innateness of sin is disceiving. Human have been equiped with an intellect and a will. With these he can determine right from wrong and use his will to resist the temptations to do wrong. In you specific regarding male humans, If it is so innate, why are so few males doing so?

Some acts, such as rape & murder are generally acknowledged to be inherently wrong, i.e malum in se, while others are more cultural in origin.

Why is rape wrong, when is just the males doing what is innately required?

Seems odd for any one religion to claim sole truth when biology, evolution & science indicate that humans are far more varied & hard wired than many think. Of course, this doesn’t excuse ill conduct. I chose to be loyal to my spouse, for example.

Equally odd is the double standard exhibited in this post. Please provide scientific evidence that humans are hardwired to sin.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t believe they did. Even if they had doubts, they followed Him and did as He asked.

Was this greatly in evidence shortly after the crucifixion? Were the disciples confident in their beliefs? Is not the story of St. Thomas noteworthy?

Further, kindly consider that these same apostles were with Jesus when he allegedly performed miracles. If even these witnesses to such incredible events might harbor enough doubt to barricade themselves in a room after God’s apparent departure, how difficult might God find it to understand an unwillingness to act on the part of those who have never been privy to such spectacles?

Probably no reason. Why shouldn’t we be like them and be expected to believe what they were told by someone trustworthy?

Who is trustworthy? Is it the one who claims that God loves him and hates others? What if one is among the others so hated?

Equally, is one trustworthy who may not only fail to provide proof, but who disparages those who demand it?

Requesting what doesn’t exist is irrational. What many demand as proof does not exist.

May it not also be suggested that requesting anything from that which does not appear to exist would seem equally irrational?

Prayers are always answered. Many times the answer is no, other times, it is not yet.

So if the question, “Lord, I am willing to follow you, but please provide clear proof that I am on the correct path in assessing these matters?” is asked while one’s foot is on the path to the Catholic Church, what is one to make of a “no” or “not yet” response? Certainly if the answer were “yes” one would be aware of same?

No. Demanding suggests an air of superiority. God is partial to the humble.

OK: is the humble request (often phrased in the imperative) that one believe without proof a fair one?

Frauds do not speak for God.

Is there anywhere evidence that God takes pains to make such distinctions plain (aside from the rivalry evident among the parties themselves)? Are the tests claimed to validate their credentials still valid: are any immune to poisons, able to heal the sick, and able to cast out demons? If not, are no authentic bearers of Christ’s message currently available?

No such virtue exists. Confusion, unless self-inflicted, does not cause one to be in hell. Is this a strawman?

It is possible, but would one not then be required to disregard Christ’s teaching that unbelievers will suffer hellfire?

 

[MarkInOregon]

That would surprise me to. After all, if there is more than one way to the mountain top, why stick to only one? Or why not pave your own way?

Because not all ways are equal. One should take the surest path to the top of the mountain–if one **needs **to get to the top of the mountain. When you attempt to make your own path there are many perils. This is why mountain climbers take known routes. This is why people going to Oregon took the Oregon trail–and stuck to it. These things are hard enough without needlessly increasing your risk of failure. Every winter here we see someone crossing the mountains, getting off the main road, getting lost, getting stuck in the snow, and if they are lucky they are found–not all are so lucky. After all we are not talking about a Sunday drive where the fun might be in less explored road. We are talking about reaching a destination–that we must reach.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[steve_b]

It is possible. In order to bring the question of God into focus there may often require an impetus.

On the other hand, is it not also possible that such a potentially facile desire to blame the skeptic is a natural extension of a faith that already blames mankind for every fault and evil that would otherwise be fairly considered the responsibility of God?

Cause and effect is already in place. It effects everything in creation

blame is usually associated with a bad result/outcome/effect caused by some thing or some one. In this particular case we are talking about the human race choosing between life or death, blessings or curses in their everyday decisions. Those choices bring all kinds of consequences, too numerous to even fathom. Bottomline, people do have choice between what’s good and evil. If there wasn’t such choice, then there wouldn’t be corresponding responsibility or blame to dish out…true?
J:

Might it not be understandable for a skeptic to also see this as potentially akin to an abusive relationship in which the victim is forever excusing the aggressor by heaping the blame upon herself? Might she not equally seek his forgiveness for every trifle in order to bask in his rare, but intense love? Is such a one not also very plain in his demands for obedience, gratitude, and admiration?

• The 1st idea I see in your analogy is the relationship between God and man. God never promised an easy life for anyone. He only promises He will be at our side helping us through our trials. If one doesn’t understand that, then one doesn’t understand God in one’s suffering.
• the 2nd idea I see, is a little more self focused. A victim in an abusive relatiuonship, doesn’t have to stay in that relationship. To move on completely, the victim leaves, and forgives the abuser. If the victim leaves but hangs on to their furry, who is that furry ultimately effecting? The abuser? Nope! They could probably care less. The one carrying the furry like a ton of rocks on their shoulders is the victim who continually makes themself a victim until they let go of the furry.

J:

I sincerely hope such questions are not viewed as provocative or insulting. I value all of your (name removed by moderator)ut and would not willingly cause offense.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

I’m just a begger showing another where I found the banquet