Explain the justice of hell.

[MarkInOregon]

As a person actively searching for a faith that just feels “right” I watch these discussions with interest.

May I suggest that rather than searching for something that “feels” right – you seach for what is true. Too many look for what “feels” right to them regardless of whether it is true or not. Sometimes something that is true–may not feel right or good at times–it may not be how we want to live right now–but if it is true–well shouldn’t we? Feelings will come and go but the truth will remain.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[davidv]

Was this greatly in evidence shortly after the crucifixion?

He wasn’t present to lead, so I don’t understand the relevance.

Were the disciples confident in their beliefs? Is not the story of St. Thomas noteworthy?

I have no idea how confident they were. Clearly they were afraid of the authorities. The story of St. Thomas is noteworthy in that clearly presented that the demand for physical evidence was the inferior position.

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?

I would submit that it was fear, not doubt, that caused them to hide. Where was this fear and doubt, if any, after Pentecost?

Who is trustworthy? Is it the one who claims that God loves him and hates others?

Claims are insufficient. God is totally trustworthy. The Church can trace its teaching to the teaching that the Son of God taught the Apostles.

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?

Why is labeling a demand irrational, disparaging?

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

Suggesting and true are not equivalent.

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?

In one my company provided training classes that was teaching us advanced problem solving, one of the slogans that is demonstably true was: “if you don’t like the answer, ask a better question.” I believe it was on Drew Marianni’s Relevant radio show this week one of his quests spoke the prayers he said. They went like this, “Lord, if this is not your will, stop me.” The message to me is that one must use their own reasoning and step out in faith and began the process. God has already made the first move, He created you and loves you and provided you with His Church to show you the way to Him.

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

No, it is not a fair question, because the questioner has often set the standard of proof so high that no possible answer can be satisfactory.

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?

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

No.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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?

What you write is true, but is it complete?

Consider cause and effect. Is it not possible to conceive of an evil act that might produce good effect or a good act that might produce evil? How about a neutral act that might produce either or both?

With such clear blurring of cause and effect is it any wonder that one might perceive difficulty with heedlessly believing in what one is told to believe without giving it fair scrutiny?

*]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.

This is possible, certainly.

*]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.

Hmm…here I am not quite as certain of your meaning. In an abusive relationship does one not often find an individual who enjoys power bullying one who wishes to keep the peace? Should the victim leave is she not often hunted down by her abuser–perhaps even killed?

Consider an abuser: to maintain control he threatens, punishes, and manipulates by claiming to have great love for the victim.

Consider the victim: to maintain an illusion of peace she learns not to question, obeys immediately, blames herself for her failings that have seemingly caused the anger, and is overwhelmed with gratitude at the periods of intense love showered upon her, which she swiftly convinces herself to be genuine. Her ability to leave the situation becomes more and more compromised the deeper she believes the abuser to be her protector and herself to be worthless and guilty of wrongdoings.

Compare instead a healthy relationship: each spouse respects the other, does not threaten the other, does not withhold information from the other, and does not consistently blame the other for his/her shortcomings. The feelings of the other are paramount and the worthiness of the other is taken for granted without needing to be constantly proven.

Which relationship might best parallel that of humanity and God as described in the Bible?

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

Thank you for your generosity in offering to so lead.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

May I suggest that rather than searching for something that “feels” right – you seach for what is true. Too many look for what “feels” right to them regardless of whether it is true or not. Sometimes something that is true–may not feel right or good at times–it may not be how we want to live right now–but if it is true–well shouldn’t we? Feelings will come and go but the truth will remain.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

Might one consider that in order to know for certain what is true it must necessarily feel right to the soul? How many relationships might one enter blissfully into while feeling them to be wrong?

 

[Searcher360]

May I suggest that rather than searching for something that “feels” right – you seach for what is true. Too many look for what “feels” right to them regardless of whether it is true or not. Sometimes something that is true–may not feel right or good at times–it may not be how we want to live right now–but if it is true–well shouldn’t we? Feelings will come and go but the truth will remain.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

And therein lies the rub. I have thus far, and barring evidence to the contrary, found that “truth” is subjective. Many over the eons have claimed sole access to truth, from pre-tribal humans to bronze age Greeks to modern monotheistic religions. No one brand appears to have more or less proof than the other. How do we know there isn’t a Zeus or Osiris?

As I’ve said, I’ve increasingly come to feel God too large, too beyond our primitive understandings and too advanced for us to truly understand, at least in our current state. In short, I’m more inclined to see God as too big for any one religion. Religion is too often a tool of man; spirituality and peace with the universe of far greater reach.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He wasn’t present to lead, so I don’t understand the relevance.

I have no idea how confident they were. Clearly they were afraid of the authorities. The story of St. Thomas is noteworthy in that clearly presented that the demand for physical evidence was the inferior position.

I would submit that it was fear, not doubt, that caused them to hide. Where was this fear and doubt, if any, after Pentecost?

Tellingly, the apostles failed to act decisively until the fires of Pentecost provided concrete proof that God had invested them with a new mission so was their faith any stronger than that of Thomas? Further, if even these who had been witnesses to Jesus’ acts might hesitate in their faith without concrete proof, why is it praiseworthy to consider acting without any evidence whatsoever?

Why might one inform one’s children that they must consider carefully the validity of claims made all around them, from advertisements to classroom discussions disparaging religion, and to accept nothing without reasonable evidence, but once the topic of religion arrives the rules seemingly change?

If one might be led to religiously believe without proof may one not be equally inclined to disbelieve without proof? Why is the former praiseworthy and the latter worthy of scorn?

Claims are insufficient. God is totally trustworthy. The Church can trace its teaching to the teaching that the Son of God taught the Apostles.

And yet is it not your claim that God is trustworthy? If so, is not your own claim insufficient? If so, how differently should one treat the claim of a Church entire?

Why is labeling a demand irrational, disparaging?

Is it not?

Suggesting and true are not equivalent.

Quite.

In one my company provided training classes that was teaching us advanced problem solving, one of the slogans that is demonstably true was: “if you don’t like the answer, ask a better question.” I believe it was on Drew Marianni’s Relevant radio show this week one of his quests spoke the prayers he said. They went like this, “Lord, if this is not your will, stop me.” The message to me is that one must use their own reasoning and step out in faith and began the process. God has already made the first move, He created you and loves you and provided you with His Church to show you the way to Him.

Could one not then simply rephrase the question until one arrived at whatever response one desired from the onset?

Alternately, is it to be believed that God is so particular so as to refuse to answer questions unless they meet his exact phraseology? If so, why might that be?

No, it is not a fair question, because the questioner has often set the standard of proof so high that no possible answer can be satisfactory.

And where the standard is not set so high, is it fair?

Alternately, in matters of life and death, is it not fair to request clear evidence? If not, why not?

No.

Thank you for your frank assessment.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What puzzles me is what many consider “sin” appears to be hard wired into our DNA and brain chemistry. … 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.

Inclinations toward sin, i.e. concupiscence, is not sinful in and of themselves. Acting on those inclinations is what is sinful.

Some poor souls suffer an inclination towards violence, others substance abuse, others sexual misconduct. They all require compassion and understanding.

 

[minkymurph]

I do not think the majority of writers consciously lied or had the intent to do so. Based on my years of experience, however, I tend to think many confused fact with belief or, perhaps more accurately, expressions of hope.

You are absolutely right. Authors of the bible did confuse fact with belief, and had certain hopes. These confusions and expectations of hope are recorded in scripture, and they are recorded for a reason.

To explain - did not the Apostles confuse fact with belief, and expectations of hope, and is this not recorded in scripture? Did not Nathaniel say when others approached him saying, ‘We have found the Messiah, can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Did not the Apostles say to Jesus on more than one occasion, ‘Are you restoring Israel at this time?’ In the first century, the Jews had certain expectations as to who the Messiah would be, and what he would achieve. Some thought the Messiah would restore Israel in a spiritual sense, some thought the Messiah would be a military leader who would lead them against Rome, rid Israel of Roman rule and restore it to its former glory, the ‘Golden Age’ Israel had enjoyed during King David’s reign. Time and time again Jesus told his Apostles this was not the purpose of his coming. They misunderstood his guidance because they had personal hopes and expectations of the Messiah. It wasn’t because Jesus didn’t let them in on the ‘secret,’ he did. However, they interpreted what he was saying in accordance with their personal hopes and expectations and consequently, missed the point. These things are recorded in scripture for a reason. Human nature has not changed. Consequently, we continue to interpret God’s Revelation in accordance with our personal hopes and desires, and it may not be what God is revealing to us at all. What is recorded in scripture alerts us to that - don’t miss the point because God is not saying what you want Him to say, God will not do what you, I, or anyone else thinks He should. He may have other plans. As I have said, how you approach the bible depends very much on what you think the bible is, and what the author’s intention was in writing it.

In short, I have enormous trouble seeing how people who lived as little as 100 to even 2000 years after the death of Christ can have anything beyond 3rd, 4th and eventually up to 1500th hand information. Speculation and conjecture do not, to me, seem what the almighty would do. That’s a human failing.

They did have 3rd, 4th an 1500th information. If the handing on of divine revelation was left to human fallibility, one could expect it to be very distorted. However, Catholics believe divine truths are protected by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that protects divine truths, not human. The only way divine truths could be handed on is if it were protected. If it were not, as you say, it would be subject to human fallibility and misinterpretation. That is what we humans do with Revelation. However, as Jesus said, the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth. When we err, the action of the Holy Spirit guides us back again. However, one needs to listen and put their assumptions and misinterpretations to one side in order to know what is being said. It’ s like a game I played as a child called Chinese Whispers. You had a chain of people, the person at the head of the chain whispered in someone’s ear, the whisper passed down the line and the last person had to say what they heard - usually nothing like what the first person said. However, you could ask the person who started the whisper what they actually said. As with God. If you want to know what he actually said in the first place, ask Him.

 

[minkymurph]

The Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, prehistoric/tribal man, Mayans and more all thought they alone knew truth and were as passionate in their beliefs as we are now. This said, they also had no more proof than we do now. Might future generations look at modern religions with the same quaint “are you serious” smirk we do towards people who once believed in Isis, Zeus and a chariot pulling the sun across the sky. They had no more proof than we do, yet history says believed just as as fervently.

If you don’t mind bearing with me, I’ll enlarge on this.

Consider the spontaneous generation theory. Yes, we have more knowledge now. However, was what they thought really so bizzare? You can understand why they came to that conclusion. Their perception of the event may have left something to be desired because they did not have the knowledge we do now. That does not mean the event did not happen.

To explain further - my youngest son was ill. He had a temperature, a headache and felt pretty rotten. He asked me how he got sick. I told him bad bugs were in his body, but his body makes good bugs that eat the bad bugs and so he would get better, when the good bugs ate all the bad bugs. He loves his grub so good bugs eating bad bugs appeals to him. He asked me how they got into his body and I told him the are in the air and you breathe them in. I told my older son the good bugs are soldiers that attack the enemy bugs and kill them, 'cos he’s into that sort of thing at the minute and it would appeal to him. :nunchuk:

Now, I’m not being terribly accurate, but am I so far off the mark and am I not adapting and exaggerating facts to explain something in a way my ‘audience’ can understand? Personally speaking, I love exaggeration of facts, imaginative explanations and flowering things up for effect. So, I’m not particularly bothered if someone else does it. I’ll openly admit I’ve kissed the Blarney Stone as we say in my part of the world, and I know many others who have. It’s part of our culture to exaggerate details in order to entertain the ‘audience.’ Everyone knows it’s exaggeration and everyone knows they are not supposed to take the account literally, and everyone knows when the story has a serious message, that is what they are supposed to take away rather than debate the authenticity of finer detail. Details aren’t the point, it’s what you learn is the point. For anyone who has studied Irish history, prior to the 10th century most of Irish history is legend and there’s no hard evidence for any of it. However, kids love hearing about Dermot McMurragh who was king of Leinster, as he allegedly took a bite from a head of one of his enemies that was presented to him. It probably never happened. Legends do get embellished over time. However, they are not mere fiction. Dermot was a real person, he was the King of Leinster and not a very pleasant person.

 

[davidv]

Tellingly, the apostles failed to act decisively until the fires of Pentecost provided concrete proof that God had invested them with a new mission so was their faith any stronger than that of Thomas? Further, if even these who had been witnesses to Jesus’ acts might hesitate in their faith without concrete proof, why is it praiseworthy to consider acting without any evidence whatsoever?

Why might one inform one’s children that they must consider carefully the validity of claims made all around them, from advertisements to classroom discussions disparaging religion, and to accept nothing without reasonable evidence, but once the topic of religion arrives the rules seemingly change?

If one might be led to religiously believe without proof may one not be equally inclined to disbelieve without proof? Why is the former praiseworthy and the latter worthy of scorn?

And yet is it not your claim that God is trustworthy? If so, is not your own claim insufficient? If so, how differently should one treat the claim of a Church entire?

Is it not?

Quite.

Could one not then simply rephrase the question until one arrived at whatever response one desired from the onset?

Alternately, is it to be believed that God is so particular so as to refuse to answer questions unless they meet his exact phraseology? If so, why might that be?

And where the standard is not set so high, is it fair?

Alternately, in matters of life and death, is it not fair to request clear evidence? If not, why not?

Thank you for your frank assessment.

Please explain what you think was more definitive proof than the physical presence of the risen Jesus, that was provided at Pentecost? How could a symbolic presence (tongues of fire) be proof that would be more convincing the Jesus’ physical presence?

Note: It appears the we falling way off track of the OP. If you wish to continue on this line of inquiry, please start a new tread and I will join you.

 

[minkymurph]

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Not a problem.

Would not the problem with this approach be that the Bible may then be taken to mean whatever one so wishes?

Of course the bible may be taken to mean whatever one so wishes. Any literary may be taken to mean whatever the reader wishes. That does mean the author intended their words to be construed as such. Irrespective of how accurate and selective the author is in choosing their words, it is more than possible the reader may interpret what they say in a whole variety of ways. To illustrate, I am a Law student. Legislators are very particular when composing legislation. Their words can still be interpreted in a whole variety of ways. I am currently studying criminal law. My coursework is on the Theft Act, and I have just read a case were one of the Lords devotes six pages to the meaning of the word ‘appropriation’ in the Theft Act and Parliament’s intention in including the word ‘appropriates’ in the Theft Act. I have read a text book that devotes almost an entire chapter to the meaning of the word ‘appropriates’ as stated in s1 of the Theft Act. What amazes me is in relation to the bible, people seem to think God should have made things absolutely clear in regard to one word or sentence in the bible. Yes, God should have used his almighty power to ensure authors and translators wrote absolutely accurately. However, he would have to use his power to ensure everyone who read it to construe the words and context accurately. Not much room for speculative and imaginative thought their, and no room for self expression. Such a Revelation would be pretty dull. I’ve no problem with speculation and imagination. I think it’s a essential element of being human. However, one needs to recognize their personal speculation and imagination and not teach it as ‘God says’ and if you don’t agree with me you’re not only wrong but going to hell. What does not change is what God wants us to know. Yes, what God reveals is subject to human perceptions. However, does the bible not tell us this? That humans did misunderstand what God was revealing? Not in terms of principles or morals, but in terms who or what we think God is and how we think He should act? God is neither master to human hopes, desires and expectations or human will. He will do what is just and loving irrespective of what we think is just and loving. The scriptures are full of illustrations of that, and how in hindsight people realized this.

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.

Does it say in scripture homosexuals should be killed? If it does, I’m aware of it. But, I could be wrong. It may say it. If it does, (and if it does I’ll bet you know where it does, )
I can comment on it. I personally can’t think of anywhere.

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?

One can grow close to whatever image of God one chooses. The image we choose is not necessarily who God is. If God was not concerned about how we interpret his meanings, he would have become Incarnate. The purpose of the Incarnation was to reveal God. The best way for a human to relate to the nature of God is to put that nature in human form. Of course, it wasn’t the only reason but I won’t get into all that theology.

However, you said, and you made a good point, that to understand how Catholics think on the bible, or anything else for that matter, is to engage in dialogue with them. The Incarnation is central to the Catholic faith, and everything else hinges on it. Being an atheist you don’t believe God exists let alone became Incarnate. However, if you want to get your head round the Catholic faith and their image of God, you need to get your head round their understanding of the Incarnation. You are free to disagree with it, but if you want to understand what makes Catholics tick, you won’t do that if you can’t get your head around their understanding of the Incarnation.

In relation to the above, of course my interpretation of scripture is problematic. If it wasn’t, it would be perfect and I would know the very mind of God. What I say is theory. No more, no less. Anyone is free to disagree. I don’t claim to be an authority on the mind of God. In fact, I’d be concerned if someone just accepted everything I said. They would be putting too great a degree on what they perceive as a good argument, rather than a true belief.

 

[minkymurph]

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

Yes, if that is what is need for people to understand. I used an illustration of this in another post to Searcher. God responds according to need. We cannot assume everyone thinks the way we do, or need the same thing from God we do.

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?

He did. His explanations weren’t given to everyone. Why? They didn’t ask - perhaps because they didn’t want to know.

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.

Given to those who want it. Not given to those who don’t. Those who want an abundance will have, those who don’t will not grow spiritually and therefore, their potential for spiritual growth, which is equivalent to those who desire to know more, is stunted and they loose the potential because they don’t want it to grow. Jesus spoke in parables not to confuse but to make people think, and as a taster. Anyone who wanted more knowledge could have it. Anyone who didn’t was not given it. Is it not fair to say that you and I engage in dialogue to a greater extent with people who are interested in what we have to say than those who don’t?

 

[minkymurph]

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.

I engaged many an atheist in dialogue who states they want God to spell everything out for them. Are you saying if God spelled everything out you would believe? I don’t think so. I someone felt they needed to spell everything out for me, I would feel pretty insulted and suggest they talk to a 4 year old who needs everything spelled out for them because they don’t have the cognitive ability to reason as an adult, whereas I do. Do you think God is at fault because He asks you to work things out for yourself? Is it not fair to say you be miffed with God if he denied you opportunity to make your own decisions? If God did not denied you that, you wouldn’t be an atheist. You’d believe in him whether you liked it or not.

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?

Are you saying from your point of view God is conspiring against our inability to understand Him?

 

[minkymurph]

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

I would say God does not offer us life in heaven because he needs our company. Do we as humans need children? Do we need a pet dog or cat? We could not only survive but have a fulfilling life without either. Of course I don’t mean to suggest that we are just God’s pets. To explain - I once had a conversation with a workmate in which she suggested people have children for selfish reasons. Primarily, they have children to fill their own needs and desires and it’s not about the child’s needs. Perhaps she had a point. In contemporary society children have almost become a fashion accessory. We have celebrities who adopt children and it is a questionable practice. Why don’t they use their money to help a village, give lots of children a good life an leave them with their family? So, there is an argument that having or adopting a child is more about making ourselves feel good than it is about the child. God is not in the business of making himself feel good about himself. God desires to share a life with us. This is why he created us in his own image - so we may share that life. It is not so God can feel fulfilled, but so we can. Love is not fulfilled when kept to oneself. It is fulfilled when shared with another. However, if your going to ask me why God created humans, and wanted them to share his life in the first place, I have absolutely no idea.

I know why I had children. I wanted kids. Why? Who knows? However, I would reject the theory it was simply because I wanted to preserve my genes, and I didn’t have them simply because I needed the company. I may have had them because I needed someone to show me how to work the remote and programme the DVD.

I can recall having a conversation with a computer technician on the phone one night. My IT skills weren’t great at the time and he asked me if there was anyone else in the house who knew more about computers than I did. I said, ‘Yes, my son’s here.’ He asked if I could put him on the phone and I said I could. The problem was he couldn’t read because he was only 5.

 

[minkymurph]

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?

You seem to have this image of God that’s all about getting everything he says right, and following his directives to the letter and the only way we can avoid hell is if we follow his directives to the letter which he has intentionally made obscure. Why is that? Does a parent not know when they have a child they will not always follow their directives to the letter? Could it not be said expecting a child to follow your directives to the letter is unrealistic and unreasonable - in that that expectation is too high?

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.

I appreciate you saying that. It’s been a good debate you’ve been fun to post with.

 

[Searcher360]

You are absolutely right. Authors of the bible did confuse fact with belief, and had certain hopes. These confusions and expectations of hope are recorded in scripture, and they are recorded for a reason.

To explain - did not the Apostles confuse fact with belief, and expectations of hope, and is this not recorded in scripture…They misunderstood his guidance because they had personal hopes and expectations of the Messiah. It wasn’t because Jesus didn’t let them in on the ‘secret,’ he did. However, they interpreted what he was saying in accordance with their personal hopes and expectations and consequently, missed the point. These things are recorded in scripture for a reason. Human nature has not changed. Consequently, we continue to interpret God’s Revelation in accordance with our personal hopes and desires, and it may not be what God is revealing to us at all…

They did have 3rd, 4th an 1500th information. If the handing on of divine revelation was left to human fallibility, one could expect it to be very distorted. However, Catholics believe divine truths are protected by the Holy Spirit… If it were not, as you say, it would be subject to human fallibility and misinterpretation. That is what we humans do with Revelation. However, as Jesus said, the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth. When we err, the action of the Holy Spirit guides us back again. However, one needs to listen and put their assumptions and misinterpretations to one side in order to know what is being said. It’ s like a game I played as a child called Chinese Whispers. You had a chain of people, the person at the head of the chain whispered in someone’s ear, the whisper passed down the line and the last person had to say what they heard - usually nothing like what the first person said…As with God. If you want to know what he actually said in the first place, ask Him.

I do not entirely follow. Are you stating that an unseen “holy spirit” some how invisibly guided writers in the 2nd century up to and including the present and that upon such basis the writings underpinning Christianity are thus infallible? Is this how one can deem inapplicable the scenario of “Chinese Whispers” you describe? I rather liked your description of this familiar game, as I tend to view it directly applicable to modern religious writings. I view the scenario you describe as precisely what has happened over the centuries.

I am equally puzzled at this statement of yours: “we continue to interpret God’s Revelation in accordance with our personal hopes and desires, and it may not be what God is revealing to us at all”. Well then, why all the secrecy and games for lack of a better word? Why does everything have to be so complicated? At the risk of sounding a little snobby, few have the intellect to understand, much less debate & discuss as you do here. How can God expect the vast majority of people who I reluctantly feel don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand many of the concepts here to comply with his directives? Most can’t drive and talk at the same time! It’s like that TV show, “Lost”.

 

[minkymurph]

I do not entirely follow. Are you stating that an unseen “holy spirit” some how invisibly guided writers in the 2nd century up to and including the present and that upon such basis the writings underpinning Christianity are thus infallible? Is this how one can deem inapplicable the scenario of “Chinese Whispers” you describe? I rather liked your description of this familiar game, as I tend to view it directly applicable to modern religious writings. I view the scenario you describe as precisely what has happened over the centuries.

I have no idea how the Holy Spirit operates physically. What I believe, is there was an engagement between God and the authors of scripture. Deepening our understanding of the deep things of God, and our relationship with him requires engagement with the Holy Spirit. My point is we are not left to our own devices. If we were, we have the Chinese Whispers scenario, but we are not. When we misunderstand, misinterpret and confuse our own perceptions and desires with the will of God, it is the Holy Spirit that guides us back to truth. Therefore, interpretations are subject to human infallibility, what was ‘said’ (for want of a better phrase) in the first place is not, and can be known if we have a desire to know.

I am equally puzzled at this statement of yours: “we continue to interpret God’s Revelation in accordance with our personal hopes and desires, and it may not be what God is revealing to us at all”. Well then, why all the secrecy and games for lack of a better word? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

Because my friend life is complicated. Besides, a world were everything was black and white, everything was known and everything was certain wouldn’t be any fun.

There is no doubt God is a mysterious being. Why? I don’t think anyone can really explain that. My hope is that some day I will know, and if I get to heaven before you’re departure from this world, I’ll pay you a visit and let you in on the secret. :angel1:

At the risk of sounding a little snobby, few have the intellect to understand, much less debate & discuss as you do here. How can God expect the vast majority of people who I reluctantly feel don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand many of the concepts here to comply with his directives? Most can’t drive and talk at the same time! It’s like that TV show, “Lost”.

Does God expect people to understand everything? Does God not know human limitations? If people don’t have the intellect to understand certain things, then it would be totally unjust of God to punish them for not understanding. People don’t spend eternity in hell as a consequence of having a limited understanding. If that were the case, then everyone with a learning difficulty has no chance of getting into heaven.

What ‘directives’ do people not understand? The Ten Commandments are pretty clear. Love God and love your neighbour is pretty clear. What directives would you say require further clarification? What is it you think God has kept from us?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Please explain what you think was more definitive proof than the physical presence of the risen Jesus, that was provided at Pentecost? How could a symbolic presence (tongues of fire) be proof that would be more convincing the Jesus’ physical presence?

That is a fair point.

How then to explain their continued inaction prior to Pentecost? Why would even physical evidence of Jesus’ return not convince them of their mission until God, seemingly fed up with their timidity, light a fire on their heads so that they might get on with things?

If apostles who had known and seen Jesus seemingly required such theatrics, why is there a problem with requesting more for modern day skeptics?

Note: It appears the we falling way off track of the OP. If you wish to continue on this line of inquiry, please start a new tread and I will join you.

Actually, if you do not mind, I would prefer to continue here. Strangely, my own threads seem to get shut down.

 

[steve_b]

What you write is true, but is it complete?

Consider cause and effect. Is it not possible to conceive of an evil act that might produce good effect or a good act that might produce evil? How about a neutral act that might produce either or both?

With such clear blurring of cause and effect is it any wonder that one might perceive difficulty with heedlessly believing in what one is told to believe without giving it fair scrutiny?

This is possible, certainly.

Hmm…here I am not quite as certain of your meaning. In an abusive relationship does one not often find an individual who enjoys power bullying one who wishes to keep the peace? Should the victim leave is she not often hunted down by her abuser–perhaps even killed?

Consider an abuser: to maintain control he threatens, punishes, and manipulates by claiming to have great love for the victim.

Consider the victim: to maintain an illusion of peace she learns not to question, obeys immediately, blames herself for her failings that have seemingly caused the anger, and is overwhelmed with gratitude at the periods of intense love showered upon her, which she swiftly convinces herself to be genuine. Her ability to leave the situation becomes more and more compromised the deeper she believes the abuser to be her protector and herself to be worthless and guilty of wrongdoings.

Compare instead a healthy relationship: each spouse respects the other, does not threaten the other, does not withhold information from the other, and does not consistently blame the other for his/her shortcomings. The feelings of the other are paramount and the worthiness of the other is taken for granted without needing to be constantly proven.

Which relationship might best parallel that of humanity and God as described in the Bible?

Thank you for your generosity in offering to so lead.

We can go down endless trails. I’m not good at that. Just being transparant

So here’s what I absolutely know. Having been conceived we are body and soul. We are already immortal by virtue of being conceived. The body is mortal, the soul is immortal. It never sleeps it won’t die. Once created by God at our conception, It has memory intellect and will forever. No matter how one might want to change that plan or argue against it, they can’t. One can argue all they want, it’s not going to change. They will live forever. The question is, where? The beatitudes and consequences God put in place. We can’t change any of that either. Both are realities, both are states, and will last forever. It makes sense then, to be in the state/place of beatitudes and not consequences. So we need to choose well. This life is the time of testing. No matter how good things are in this life, it’s merely a snack. No matter how bad things are in this life, they’ll be over soon. For the one who thinks this life is all there is, no God, no heaven, no hell, they’ll have a huge realization.coming. Those who seek heaven will be inclined to want the things of God. They’re already seeking the correct choices, no matter how difficult those choices seem to be. Therefore, our prized possession, is our soul. We have to protect it at all cost. Fortunately, to keep this all within the topic of the thread, not even the gates of hell which truly exists, will prevail against the Catholic Church.

If one is a pure secularist then I would say do a cost benefit analysis. Everybody dies. It’s 1 for 1. If God, heaven and hell don’t exist and it’s lights out for all eternity, then no harm no foul. But if God exists, and all one has heard about God, heaven and hell are true, and it’s an eternity in hell, seems to me, under no circumstances, would one want to even consider going against such odds.

 

[SonCatcher]

Instead he doesn’t give most of humanity enough reason to even think he (or at least your version of him) even exists.

About [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] of humanity currently living sees reason enough for the “Christian version” of God. Another [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]4[/sub] sees reason enough for the “Islamic version,” which, though imperfect, is very similar. That’s a simple majority right there.