Explain the justice of hell.

[jmvizanko]

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.

That’s exactly what I was saying. I don’t understand the liberal Christian position at all. If you honestly think that following any religion is alright, then why would you still identify yourself as a Christian? You really have to throw out what Christianity means to say that it is not important at all to specifically be a Christian.

Of course, I disagree, and I don’t think there is a mountain top, and all the paths trying to reach it are climbing an imaginary mountain. But what is surprising is to hear somebody that has dedicated their life to one specific religion saying that they don’t think any specific religion really matters more than the other ones, or at least not that much.

 

[jmvizanko]

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.

Sure, but when you factor out how many of those people whose only reason for thinking God or Allah exists is that they were born into it and haven’t really examined their faith from an external context, I think you’d have a lot less people left over. Plus you are only considering the current numbers. If you factor in everybody that ever existed, you majority is gone, even ignoring the point I just made.

And I don’t know that you can really equate God and Allah. After all, if Allah exists then you are going to hell for believing in God. Clearly these are two different gods then. So if through say, personal experiences or “communication” with either god is part of what you consider the reasons people believe in them, then you have either a schizophrenic Allah/God, or Allah or God, with either Christians dreaming up their interactions with God through nothing more than placebo, coincidence, and expectation bias, or the Muslims dreaming up theirs. Unless you think all the “communication” coming from Allah to Muslims is just Satan speaking to them or something.

 

[jmvizanko]

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

Can you really count the two exceptions, since they were the only 2 humans that god (one of them god himself, yet not god in some weird way) HAD to be sinless, as examples of humans? If Mary and Jesus had to be sinless, then that means they could not have had the ability to sin, or your God’s plan for salvation could possibly have not happened.

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.

Even if what you say is correct, the fact is according to what you believe, God created us and knew that starting with the first man, we would do things he doesn’t want us to do. You can say that to be truly human is to be without sin, but that is ignoring reality. Because every man does sin according to your definitions of sin, no matter how holy they strive to be.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Many atheists are happy, including myself, and we TRULY think the “party” that Father Barron speaks of is imaginary.

Then why waste any of your time with this?

Go live the rest of the 50+ years of your life till you vanish into nothing.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No, that was not my conclusion. My conclusion is one should not base one’s opinions concerning either God’s Revelation or the intention of the authors of scripture on one word translated from ancient Hebrew into modern English. If my words suggested otherwise, please excuse my literary clumsiness. Just as well I’m not writing God’s Revelation.
You seem stuck on this word lying. I am not an expert on ancient Hebrew by any stretch of the imagination, so I have to rely on Google. Admittedly, not the most reliable source, but here’s what I found -

*The problem is not with the text but with our view of a lie. The Hebrew word for “lied” in Numbers 23:19 is kazav (Strong’s # 3576). By looking at another verse using this same word we will see that this word does not literally mean “lie”. Isaiah 58:11 says; “you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail”. The word “fail” is the same word kazav. *

Should one then understand that a spirit in God’s presence volunteered to spread “failure” among the prophets of Ahab so that he would hear the opposite of the truth? Or should one understand the passage to mean something else?

Would either reading not equally suggest that either God appears perfectly willing to confound individuals for reasons of his own or else that the Bible itself cannot be relied upon to offer much real insight into God’s mindset given that so much of it appears to be pure invention?

I think I’ve pretty much addressed this - because they encountered God who revealed Divine truths to them and inspired them to write - not because they were excellent literary skills and they would never get anything wrong.

However, given that those who must rely upon these authors have no means of parsing among these 4 possibilities when reading their works, how is any insight into God’s nature truly possible? How is one’s interpretation of the Bible to be anything other than subjective, regardless of which authority apparently offers to guide the one? Is God’s purpose to lead mankind in truth, or is it some other purpose?

Of course.

Excellent points. In this area I would say we’re on the same page. If the actual words of scripture were so important, God would not only have to make sure the author made no mistakes, but also the translator. If God made sure of this, all translations would read the same. Translations of the bible are subject to human fallibility. They are also subject to the translators own particular perceptions and bias. Scripture does have a literal meaning, but as you quite rightly point out, problems with translation require caution concerning a literal reading.

This one must then conclude that either God is not overly concerned about being properly understood or else the purpose of the work itself was not to serve this aim. If so, might one then inquire what relationship one may hope to foster with such a seemingly aloof entity?

Also, might one not equally inquire into the dedicated strength of the Holy Spirit if its failure to guard God’s original words might appear to be so complete? How might one maintain confidence in its accurate influence during more recent times?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I wouldn’t place my soul on the line to defend one particular word or sentence in the bible, or my own understanding of a particular passage of scripture.

Is this not implicitly the case? If God claims that doing X will be reason for one’s destruction, but Jesus’ message might be interpreted to mean that doing same need no longer apply, is one not staking one’s soul on assuming a proper understanding of God’s true will?

In my view yes, the point of the bible is to allow mankind to become better acquainted with his reality. It is also a record of how others encountered God’s reality, and struggled with it. It does contain Divine truths about God, but contains many other things - moral values, songs of praise, poems, history. It is also a book of guidance, Jesus frequently preached concerning right living. I’m not sure about the book of Numbers, I don’t know what we’re supposed to get out of a big list of names.

Fair enough.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Always consider the credibility of the source .

How might one ascertain such credibility? Is a source credible based on the behavior of its leaders? The activities of its adherents? The unity and consistency of its message? The abundant favors unambiguously bestowed upon those who adhere to its teachings?

The whole point of Divine revelation is God teaching His children the truth. and not believe things that aren’t true. If He didn’t give us the truth, then there is no foul in getting things wrong.

Does this not then imply that if God did then provide truth there is harm in getting it wrong?

Let’s face it, people in general, not just the Jews, can be headstrong and ungrateful.

Today’s Mass readings.

Responsorial Psalm, *Psalms 81:6-8, 8-9, 10-11, 14, 17 *
*6 'I freed his shoulder from the burden, his hands were able to lay aside the labourer’s basket. *
*7 You cried out in your distress, so I rescued you. 'Hidden in the storm, I answered you, I tested you at the waters of Meribah.Pause *
*8 Listen, my people, while I give you warning; Israel, if only you would listen to me! *
*9 'You shall have no strange gods, shall worship no alien god. *
*10 I, Yahweh, am your God, who brought you here from Egypt, you have only to open your mouth for me to fill it. *
*11 'My people would not listen to me, Israel would have none of me. *
14 at one stroke I would subdue their enemies, turn my hand against their opponents.

Pretty ungrateful…right? Did God give up doing good for His children? No

Fast forward

Jesus said He came specifically for the lost tribe of Isreal. He gave them 1st shot. How did they do compared to the time of the writing of the Psalms? Anything change? Some converted, most didn’t.

I think the point is, God is always putting His hand out. But we have free will. Free will is what makes us culpable in the end for what we choose to do and believe.

Did not most simply remain unconvinced of Jesus’ authenticity? Since his message was radically different from that of the Old Testament and given that Jesus’ ministry hardly brought him within earshot of the vast majority of his chosen people, how is it at all clear that Jesus made a fair effort of converting his people? Could his mere three years be considered by any to be the “best possible effort” available to an omnipotent deity who truly cared? In particular, did Jesus not repeatedly request that his disciples remain silent on the subject of his divinity, necessarily robbing most of the authority that people were seeking in order to convert properly? Did he not also speak in parables with the express purpose of having the majority of hearers remain in darkness of as to his message?

Look at the Crucifixion. He loved us immensley, beyond compare…

Was not the pain of the Crucifixion necessarily something of a novelty to an all-powerful being such as God? Or might one assume that physical suffering could exist in Heaven?

Given also that it was entirely unnecessary (one might imagine dozens of alternate peaceful means of converting entire nations), might it have truly been the most loving means of converting the Jews? Consider this particularly in light of the fact that it apparently failed to work–as God must have known it would from the onset (unless one might imagine him surprised by the result).

Or, might it not instead have been a gesture designed to appeal to the gentiles given their ready familiarity with such dying and resurrecting deities as already existed in their own myths? Is it possible that God was signalling that he was prepared to move on to a new chosen people, thereby abandoning his promise to the Jews?

If so, was God not seemingly as guilty of fickle forgetfulness as might have been accused the Jewish people?

 

[Searcher360]

Then why waste any of your time with this?

Go live the rest of the 50+ years of your life till you vanish into nothing.

I would not classify discussion & thought as a waste of time?

Many, like me, want to believe in something, yet need more than “because I said so” to feel right with a particular faith. From what I can see many of differing faiths tend to believe what they learned as a child & never selected a faith based on a personal search.

What troubles me, and I think others here, is the lack of objective and quantifiable proof. Much of what is taken as the gospel appears to have been written from a few hundred to several hundred years after Jesus’ passing. The skeptic in me views the quantum of proof as sorely lacking, especially since every traditional religion I am aware of arose in a time before math, science, literacy and more. I do not find this mere coincidence.

I cannot separate faith from thinking. They need not be mutually exclusive, hence my searching here and elsewhere.

 

[minkymurph]

Is this not implicitly the case? If God claims that doing X will be reason for one’s destruction, but Jesus’ message might be interpreted to mean that doing same need no longer apply, is one not staking one’s soul on assuming a proper understanding of God’s true will?

No, because one’s soul cannot be staked on an assumption. One can assume whatever one wants, God may have other ideas. I once asked a priest - something like how long it would take to understand God’s will for us - his answer was, ‘a lifetime.’ God is infinite and therefore cannot be known in his entirety until such times as we share his eternal life.

I was looking back over the thread and there are several posts you made I didn’t respond to - reason being I don’t always read all the posts in threads and miss things. :tsktsk:

If you don’t mind, I won’t respond to them now as they all relate to a similar theme - interpretation of scripture - and I don’t feel I can say anymore than I have said. I would only be repeating myself, and if you don’t mind me saying so and I really don’t mean to be offensive, a lot of your posts are repetitions of previous posts but phrased in a different way. Therefore, pursuing this line of debate to me is just flogging a dead horse. If there’s anything specific you feel I haven’t addressed adequately I will.

Fair enough.

That’s pretty much were I stand. I can’t say any more.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes, it was.

That depends very much on why one thinks the purpose the books of the OT were intended to serve. It’s credible for determining human understanding of God, and the development of human understanding of Revelation.

Then how is it properly to be understood as inspired? Is it possible for God to have inspired a false understanding?

Should it?

Would this not depend on the purpose of the book? If one is to claim that all that is necessary for salvation is found therein, why then might so many subsequent books have been published detailing further refinements of this message? Alternately, if the book were never meant to stand alone, why might one not add to it regardless?

Or must one actually audibly hear God’s voice before it may be said that his/her writings were truly God-inspired enough for inclusion in his book? If so, might one be certain if all Old Testament authors were equally so privileged?

No it doesn’t. God inspires humans in many ways. I recently listened to the story of a Methodist lady who felt inspired by God to work in Africa as a midwife. She has written an autobiography. Her story was fascinating, and I would say the Holy Spirit was operative in her life and inspiring her. However, her autobiography could not be classified as Divine Revelation. One may be inspired by God in many ways to do many things. However a better term is perhaps moved or prompted to distinguish this action of the Holy Spirit from a Revelation of Divine truths. Divine Revelation contains truths about God that could not be discovered or comprehended by human reason alone. That’s one of the distinguishing feature of Revelation and why humans struggle to express certain beliefs in human language.

Is this revelation complete or ongoing?

I must apologize but I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Please don’t think I’m being rude, but I really don’t understand what you have written here, and don’t know where you’re coming from.

When one is involved in a discussion of Biblical passages one often finds that a quotation involving Jesus preaching such unpopular tenets as the judgement of Hell are countered by quotations by more modern authors allegedly explaining away these difficult teachings. Since quite often the new message is substantively different from the original, it is confusing to this one to understand how the former is able to replace the latter.

An example is available by referencing Jesus’ teaching on Hell as mentioned above. His description of judgement is clear: he will separate the wheat from the chaff and thrust those who offend him into eternal hellfire. In this task Jesus is seen as taking an active roll and of potentially condemning even some who might have otherwise thought themselves safe from such an end.

An inquiry into how a being of love could conceive of such a solution for evildoers is answered with an appeal to the writings of CS Lewis or others which suggest, without any available evidence, that the gates to Hell are locked form within and that souls send themselves there automatically.

In stripping away all of the negative aspects linking God`s character to the maintenance of Hell they have, on the surface, resolved the issue of how a being of love might still remain loving while at the same time ignoring the screams of the damned (as in: it is not his fault, they have chosen this!), but since such an attitude appears nowhere in scripture, how is it in any way credible? Further, if God wished for such an attitude to be widely described, assuming that it was closer to the truth, why would not these writings be appended to his Bible? More directly, why would Jesus, himself, not have described the judgment to behave in this way?

 

[minkymurph]

An example is available by referencing Jesus’ teaching on Hell as mentioned above. His description of judgement is clear: he will separate the wheat from the chaff and thrust those who offend him into eternal hellfire. In this task Jesus is seen as taking an active roll and of potentially condemning even some who might have otherwise thought themselves safe from such an end.

In stripping away all of the negative aspects linking God`s character to the maintenance of Hell they have, on the surface, resolved the issue of how a being of love might still remain loving while at the same time ignoring the screams of the damned (as in: it is not his fault, they have chosen this!), but since such an attitude appears nowhere in scripture, how is it in any way credible? Further, if God wished for such an attitude to be widely described, assuming that it was closer to the truth, why would not these writings be appended to his Bible? More directly, why would Jesus, himself, not have described the judgment to behave in this way?

The answer I would give you to this is not one I could post on the forums, because it is based solely on my own opinion.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

I would not classify discussion & thought as a waste of time?

Many, like me, want to believe in something, yet need more than “because I said so” to feel right with a particular faith. From what I can see many of differing faiths tend to believe what they learned as a child & never selected a faith based on a personal search.

What troubles me, and I think others here, is the lack of objective and quantifiable proof. Much of what is taken as the gospel appears to have been written from a few hundred to several hundred years after Jesus’ passing. The skeptic in me views the quantum of proof as sorely lacking, especially since every traditional religion I am aware of arose in a time before math, science, literacy and more. I do not find this mere coincidence.

I cannot separate faith from thinking. They need not be mutually exclusive, hence my searching here and elsewhere.

“Math, science, literacy, and more” have been around for thousands of years, throughout the extent of human civilization.

The presence of a Creator is obvious, but there’s nothing really I can offer you that would change your mind. I suppose I could only offer you a blade of grass, and let you reflect on its design and perfection. The Spirit of God is in it. He made it. Its DNA, its function, its use. I could tell you about how the moon is just the right distance from the earth to create perfect eclipses, how if the moon were too close, the tidal waves would be horrific, or if it were too far, there would be no currents.

Just look at how little mankind has to tamper with the Earth, and it screws up entire ecosystems. Everything is set to a fine balace, which screams Design.

If you are looking for someone who did a personal search, that is me. Though, I was a baptist at first, my conclusions about Catholicism came later. The presence of the Divine in this universe are obvious. And since people are drawn towards the basest of pleasures, it occurred to me that most people despise the Divine. I actually realized the Church was the “One” because there were so many enemies of it. Men’s base instincts rebel against anything carrying the Divine spark.

If one wants a preview of Hell, consider the spontaneous outburst of zombie lore in the last few decades. Such is what humanity will resemble once the majority of them are in Hell’s depths.

 

[clmowry]

What troubles me, and I think others here, is the lack of objective and quantifiable proof.

But what constitutes “proof.” In years gone by I had a discussion with one of the aetheists who posted on this forum.

As with most of your theological persuasion he was looking for “proof” but also as with most others he set the burden of proof impossibly high.

He couldn’t accept ancient testimony on Christs resurection. So I offered the hypotheticals. Simplified versions are as follows:

“What if we had it on video tape” -. “Video’s can be faked.”

“What if you witnessed it personally” - “Magicians can trick people.”

“What if there was a team of physicians that verified he was dead and 3 days later was not.” - “It could be a conspiracy.”

“What if our Risen Lord appeard to you tonight in all His glory.” - “I would presume I had gone insane.”

If you set the burden of proof so high that it can never be met, then you are not searching, you are just chatting.

Thousands of brilliant scholars have embraced Catholicism for millineium. To presume that they did so simply because thats what their mama taught them is a pretty arrogant postion to take.

There is nothing in Catholicism that leads to a conflict between faith and reason. If their was, I wouldn’t be a part of it and I’d trot on over to your camp.

I would suggest you focus on what it is you think is required for a religion to be “the” religion of an Omnipotent God reaching out to a creature such as yourself without violating your free will choice to love Him or not.

What “proofs” would you expect to see?

Until you come to grips with those basic questions, I think you probably are wasting your time.

Chuck

 

[minkymurph]

Then how is it properly to be understood as inspired?

I think this has pretty much been addressed, but to clarify. What does the term ‘inspiration’ mean? Does being ‘inspired’ mean writing down word for word what someone else tells you? How did God communicate Himself to the authors of scripture? Were they sitting by, for example a stream, they heard the voice of God in their head telling them to write down exact words? Did they write is all down at once, or did God come to them at different points in time asking them to add another paragraph to their writing, telling them exactly what to say? I wouldn’t describe that as inspiration, I would describe it as dictation. If God did not physically dictate the words of scripture, or the author did not write down exactly what God said, or a reader comes to the conclusion God is not making Himself clear, can it be stated with certainty God did not inspire the author? That is for you to decide.

Further to the above, how, in a physical sense, did God transmit information or knowledge to a human author, and what role, in a physical sense, did God have in the construction of a literary text? There are several schools of thought concerning the physical transmission of Revelation. I can’t tell you how it physically happened with any degree of certainty. Therefore, you must come to your own conclusion.

The authors of scripture claim the source of inspiration for their writing was God. One is free to reject that claim, and it is fair to say God was the source of inspiration simply because the authors claim He was. Again, it’s your call. No one tell you what to think.

 

[minkymurph]

Would this not depend on the purpose of the book?

It does depend on the purpose of the book. Why do you think the bible was written?

If one is to claim that all that is necessary for salvation is found therein, why then might so many subsequent books have been published detailing further refinements of this message?

That’s not something I would claim, so I can’t comment. Subsequent books are published detailing further refinements of the message for the same reason subsequent books are published detailing further refinements of any topic.

Alternately, if the book were never meant to stand alone, why might one not add to it regardless?

One can. Whether the world at large would recognize one’s addition as inspired would be another matter.

However, being serious. The Canon of Scripture was closed, for the very reason you have eluded to. Anyone could write something and claim it was inspired. One of the reasons the Canon was closed was to prevent this from happening. Of course there are all sorts of conspiracy theories in relation to why the Canon was closed. Depends very much what you want to believe whether or not you accept them.

Or must one actually audibly hear God’s voice before it may be said that his/her writings were truly God-inspired enough for inclusion in his book? If so, might one be certain if all Old Testament authors were equally so privileged?

I think I addressed this in my previous post.

 

[minkymurph]

Is this revelation complete or ongoing?

Catholics believe revelation is complete because they believe in the Incarnation. According to Catholic belief, the Incarnation was the fulfillment of Revelation - God revealing Himself in flesh was ultimate way He could reveal himself to the human race. In that sense, God’s Revelation is complete because by coming in flesh, God revealed all humans can comprehend in relation to Revelation. That’s why they believe the person of Jesus is essential to Revelation, and the Incarnation is the central belief of Catholicism. All others beliefs are seen through this prism.

However, our understanding of Revelation is ongoing, just as our understanding of anything is ongoing. To illustrate, we have known for some time humans have a liver. That fact has not changed our understanding concerning the functions of the liver has developed as a consequence of advances in medicine.

 

[steve_b]

How might one ascertain such credibility? Is a source credible based on the behavior of its leaders? The activities of its adherents? The unity and consistency of its message? The abundant favors unambiguously bestowed upon those who adhere to its teachings?

in this case, it’s based on the originator…the creator of all that is seen and unseen.
J:

Does this not then imply that if God did then provide truth there is harm in getting it wrong?

Maybe it’s better to say, we couldn’t be responsible for getting supernatural things wrong. Only God can give us those truths so that we get them right… Otherwise it’s all guesswork on our part.

It’s like when Paul said

1 Cor 15:
*13 **If ***there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And **if **Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For **if **the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And **if **Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

*32 **If ***the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

That last statement says a lot …right?

Lot’s of “Ifs”. People don’t like “Ifs”. We want facts stated confidently. That’s why we have Divine revelation. So we don’t have to guess about the life to come…
J:

Did not most simply remain unconvinced of Jesus’ authenticity? Since his message was radically different from that of the Old Testament and given that Jesus’ ministry hardly brought him within earshot of the vast majority of his chosen people, how is it at all clear that Jesus made a fair effort of converting his people?

Why blame Jesus? Maybe it’s because the majority made no effort to know Him? We know some made the effor and got it rightt. And we know all were given the chance to get it right but many chose otherwise. The Gentiles sure got the message in a hurry.
J:

Could his mere three years be considered by any to be the “best possible effort” available to an omnipotent deity who truly cared?

What then are people’s excuse 2000 years later? The one who created all that exists, chose this way of salvation for us. And He makes it possible for all to accept the grace to accept salvation on His terms. Those are the only terms that work
J:

In particular, did Jesus not repeatedly request that his disciples remain silent on the subject of his divinity, necessarily robbing most of the authority that people were seeking in order to convert properly? Did he not also speak in parables with the express purpose of having the majority of hearers remain in darkness of as to his message?

The scribes and Pharisees you refer to, were hypocrits. They knew what to do, they had the law, but they didn’t live as they preached. Jesus knew their disposition. He’s the one who called them blind guides hypocrits, whitewashed tombs, full of deadmens bones. Papables aren’t a bad thing. They’re just problamatical for pharisees, because the deeper meaning of parables, that the willing mind understands, goes over the head of the unwilling mind who doesn’t want to understand. And in their case, because they were corrupt, they would probably twist and use the information they received against him and others who follow him anyway. So Christ says, “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you” (Mt 7:6).
J:

Was not the pain of the Crucifixion necessarily something of a novelty to an all-powerful being such as God? Or might one assume that physical suffering could exist in Heaven?

I would say it’s visually neccessary for us to see and understand, how sin offends God. There is no suffering in heaven. Only incredible peace.

incredible suffering however, occurs in hell.
J:

Given also that it was entirely unnecessary (one might imagine dozens of alternate peaceful means of converting entire nations), might it have truly been the most loving means of converting the Jews? Consider this particularly in light of the fact that it apparently failed to work–as God must have known it would from the onset (unless one might imagine him surprised by the result).

Or, might it not instead have been a gesture designed to appeal to the gentiles given their ready familiarity with such dying and resurrecting deities as already existed in their own myths? Is it possible that God was signalling that he was prepared to move on to a new chosen people, thereby abandoning his promise to the Jews?

If so, was God not seemingly as guilty of fickle forgetfulness as might have been accused the Jewish people?

The problem that always arises among many, they try and make God in their own image and likeness, ergo they’ve created an odol.

 

[clmowry]

Maybe it’s better to say, we couldn’t be responsible for getting supernatural things wrong. Only God can give us those truths so that we get them right… Otherwise it’s all guesswork on our part.

That’s effectively the path that led me back to the Chruch.

I only see 3 real choices. 1.) There is no God. 2.) There is a god but he doesn’t care what we do. There is a God and He does care what we do. (The first two seem to amount to the same thing from a practical applicaiton stand point IMHO.)

IF the third is the trugh then He must have given us a way to know what He expects of us (all men for all time).

IF not then we would be talking about a fickle or evil god and from a practical stand point, we’d be back to the same action plan as 1 and 2 (Do what ever the heck we like.)

God effectively left me with no choice to accept that He exists. The fact that He bothered to do so forced me to persue the 3rd option.

I don’t think you’ll find many religions that foot the bill.

But enough about me…

Chuck

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

I don’t know if this has already been said, or even if the original poster is still an active participant. If they are, I know the most perfect understanding of heaven and hell that there is. Ready?

Are you sure?

Okay…

When you die, you feel the true presence, the ultimate nature, the divine I AM of God. For some this experience is eternal torture, for others…it is heaven.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know if this has already been said, or even if the original poster is still an active participant. If they are, I know the most perfect understanding of heaven and hell that there is. Ready?

Are you sure?

Okay…

When you die, you feel the true presence, the ultimate nature, the divine I AM of God. For some this experience is eternal torture, for others…it is heaven.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=hell&xsubmit=Search&s=SS look at #'s 1057 & 1033