Explain the justice of hell.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmvizanko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Because I’m interested in the arguments on both sides, and I don’t think you understand your own position until you understand the opposing positions. That and I like interesting conversations. Why are you wasting your time in this particular thread if that’s all you had to offer?
 
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.
I guess you’d have to expand on why exactly my experiencing god would be torture, because that doesn’t seem intuitive to me for any reason.
 
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.
Are you kind of saying that experiencing the love of God will become a torture as if being in the presence of Love when one has been so wicked will be unbearable?
 
I guess you’d have to expand on why exactly my experiencing god would be torture, because that doesn’t seem intuitive to me for any reason.
God is infinite love. The human soul is feeble by comparison, I think an atheist could recognize that the soul of most everyone is far less potent than the force of god. Besides being a much lesser force than God, the soul is constantly ravaged by the sins we commit. All these sins are laid out in the bible and the Catechism. The only way to heal one’s soul to the extent that it can hold up in the presence of God is the following of the sacraments.

God does not choose to cause the suffering of the souls which feel his presence. He offers the means of soul healing to everyone through the Catholic church. While it is not official Catholic doctrine, I personally believe God makes provisions for souls which had no earthly knowledge of his church, were ignorant of Catholicism, or did not live long enough to be baptized.

An odd way of understanding this may be through the Harry Potter books, particularly focusing on the fate of Voldemort’s soul. His soul, ravaged by murder and hate, was unable to survive in the afterlife (in essentials. the story is by no means a perfect example.)

I believe that if you think of heaven and hell this way the focus is taken off the idea of punishment and instead focused on the real state of one’s soul. It is important to note that this theory of heaven and hell does not allow one to merely be a “good person”, because merely being a good person does not cleanse one’s soul in preparation for contact with God.

Thanks for listening,
Daniel
 
Are you kind of saying that experiencing the love of God will become a torture as if being in the presence of Love when one has been so wicked will be unbearable?
Yes. It is important to remember that the suffering or joy experienced in heaven and hell is not bodily pain or bliss, but soulful. Our bodies remain on earth until our souls descend from heaven to join them during the reign of God on Earth.
 
Why are you wasting your time in this particular thread if that’s all you had to offer?
Lol. Some answers are brief.
Because I’m interested in the arguments on both sides, and I don’t think you understand your own position until you understand the opposing positions.
So, basically, you’ve already made up your mind, and you just wanna hear the opposition so that you can perhaps better defend what you already believe.

So glad we could help you fortify your atheism.
 
So, basically, you’ve already made up your mind, and you just wanna hear the opposition so that you can perhaps better defend what you already believe.

So glad we could help you fortify your atheism.
Its not about fortifying my atheism. Its about understanding the other side. My mind is only made up in so much as I find the arguments against Christianity more compelling than the ones for. Like I have said throughout the thread, I didn’t choose that to be the case. If somebody were to actually destroy the problem of hell, problem of evil, and problem of unbelief, I wouldn’t have any choice but to find your religion at the very least more personally credible.

That being said, I won’t pretend to assume that will ever happen, despite the fact that I honestly do believe that what I believe is driven by what the arguments speak to me, and not the other way around. And this is because I don’t think there are convincing responses to these problems. But can it ever hurt to ask?
 
But can it ever hurt to ask?
To ask for an explanation of someone’s beliefs to that you can understand why they might accept them? I think not.

To ask for an explanation of someone’s beliefs to attempt to destroy those beliefs? Certainly.

Chuck
 
Its not about fortifying my atheism…



… But can it ever hurt to ask?
No, it cannot hurt. But I find it to be a massive waste of time. If you truly do not believe in God and eternal consequences for the things you do here which follow you after you transition from this period of your existence, then why are you wasting your time dabbling on the internet like this? Why care? Why even have a stupid job?

If there is no Universal Order and no Judgement, then you really ought to go do whatever you would like, regardless of the consequences to others. That’s one thing I do not understand about those pots who deny there is a potter. There should be legions of Genghis Khans out there, tearing things apart and living a life of whimsy. Instead, it’s a mass subdued people who happily or begrudgingly submit to the State. If there is no eternal Judgement, what are you waiting for? And why are you talking to me? This is such a waste of your time.

Myself? I think your father is Satan.
 
No, it cannot hurt. But I find it to be a massive waste of time. If you truly do not believe in God and eternal consequences for the things you do here which follow you after you transition from this period of your existence, then why are you wasting your time dabbling on the internet like this? Why care? Why even have a stupid job?
What is so hard to understand about people wanting to have these sorts of conversations because they are interesting? Its the apologetics section, you would think you would know that implies you are going to have conversations with people that don’t believe. Its more interesting, often, to talk with people you do not agree with.
If there is no Universal Order and no Judgement, then you really ought to go do whatever you would like, regardless of the consequences to others. That’s one thing I do not understand about those pots who deny there is a potter. There should be legions of Genghis Khans out there, tearing things apart and living a life of whimsy. Instead, it’s a mass subdued people who happily or begrudgingly submit to the State. If there is no eternal Judgement, what are you waiting for? And why are you talking to me? This is such a waste of your time.
For what reasons exactly does empathy and caring for others require theology? Because you only do good if you want reward in heaven or are seeking to avoid punishment in hell? I’ll stick to doing good for goodness’ sake.

And only doing what you like without regard for the consequences to others will actually do you less good than if you treat people well. If you treat people well and love them, they are more likely to do the same for you. I firmly believe in karma in so far as what goes around comes around. Utilitarianism does not require theology.
Myself? I think your father is Satan.
And I’m sure a member of any other religion than yours that believes in a devil migh say your father is Satan…
 
For anyone to reject the INFINITE love of Christ on the cross–if there was no Hell–there would be no justice!

In fact–people who reject Christ’s love deserve MORE than Hell!

That God is also merciful is evident by the fact that the sufferings in hell–though they are eternal and severe–are not INFINITE.

Love does not demand it’s own way.

God loves those who are going to be damned SO MUCH that He LETS them go to Hell because that is where they choose to go!
 
Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 87, The debt of punishment:

Article 3. Whether any sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment?

Objection 1. It would seem that no sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment. For a just punishment is equal to the fault, since justice is equality: wherefore it is written (Isaiah 27:8): “In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it.” Now sin is temporal. Therefore it does not incur a debt of eternal punishment.

Objection 2. Further, “punishments are a kind of medicine” (Ethic. ii, 3). But no medicine should be infinite, because it is directed to an end, and “what is directed to an end, is not infinite,” as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 6). Therefore no punishment should be infinite.

Objection 3. Further, no one does a thing always unless he delights in it for its own sake. But “God hath not pleasure in the destruction of men” [Vulgate: ‘of the living’]. Therefore He will not inflict eternal punishment on man.

Objection 4. Further, nothing accidental is infinite. But punishment is accidental, for it is not natural to the one who is punished. Therefore it cannot be of infinite duration.

On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 25:46): “These shall go into everlasting punishment”; and (Mark 3:29): “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.”

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man’s will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment.

Reply to Objection 1. Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. In no judgment, however, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11) is it requisite for punishment to equal fault in point of duration. For the fact that adultery or murder is committed in a moment does not call for a momentary punishment: in fact they are punished sometimes by imprisonment or banishment for life–sometimes even by death; wherein account is not taken of the time occupied in killing, but rather of the expediency of removing the murderer from the fellowship of the living, so that this punishment, in its own way, represents the eternity of punishment inflicted by God. Now according to Gregory (Dial. iv, 44) it is just that he who has sinned against God in his own eternity should be punished in God’s eternity. A man is said to have sinned in his own eternity, not only as regards continual sinning throughout his whole life, but also because, from the very fact that he fixes his end in sin, he has the will to sin, everlastingly. Wherefore Gregory says (Dial. iv, 44) that the “wicked would wish to live without end, that they might abide in their sins for ever.”

Reply to Objection 2. Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: “The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser.” Accordingly the eternal punishments inflicted by God on the reprobate, are medicinal punishments for those who refrain from sin through the thought of those punishments, according to Psalm 59:6: “Thou hast given a warning to them that fear Thee, that they may flee from before the bow, that Thy beloved may be delivered.”

Reply to Objection 3. God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them.

Reply to Objection 4. Although punishment is related indirectly to nature, nevertheless it is essentially related to the disturbance of the order, and to God’s justice. Wherefore, so long as the disturbance lasts, the punishment endures.
 
Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 87, The debt of punishment:

Article 4. Whether sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity?

Objection 1. It would seem that sin incurs a debt of punishment infinite in quantity. For it is written (Jeremiah 10:24): “Correct me, O Lord, but yet with judgment: and not in Thy fury, lest Thou bring me to nothing.” Now God’s anger or fury signifies metaphorically the vengeance of Divine justice: and to be brought to nothing is an infinite punishment, even as to make a thing out of nothing denotes infinite power. Therefore according to God’s vengeance, sin is awarded a punishment infinite in quantity.

Objection 2. Further, quantity of punishment corresponds to quantity of fault, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: “According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be.” Now a sin which is committed against God, is infinite: because the gravity of a sin increases according to the greatness of the person sinned against (thus it is a more grievous sin to strike the sovereign than a private individual), and God’s greatness is infinite. Therefore an infinite punishment is due for a sin committed against God.

Objection 3. Further, a thing may be infinite in two ways, in duration, and in quantity. Now the punishment is infinite in duration. Therefore it is infinite in quantity also.

On the contrary, If this were the case, the punishments of all mortal sins would be equal; because one infinite is not greater than another.

I answer that, Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the “pain of loss,” which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the “pain of sense,” which is also finite.

Reply to Objection 1. It would be inconsistent with Divine justice for the sinner to be brought to nothing absolutely, because this would be incompatible with the perpetuity of punishment that Divine justice requires, as stated above (Article 3). The expression “to be brought to nothing” is applied to one who is deprived of spiritual goods, according to 1 Corinthians 13:2: “If I . . . have not charity, I am nothing.”

Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers sin as turning away from something, for it is thus that man sins against God.

Reply to Objection 3. Duration of punishment corresponds to duration of fault, not indeed as regards the act, but on the part of the stain, for as long as this remains, the debt of punishment remains. But punishment corresponds to fault in the point of severity. And a fault which is irreparable, is such that, of itself, it lasts for ever; wherefore it incurs an everlasting punishment. But it is not infinite as regards the thing it turns to; wherefore, in this respect, it does not incur punishment of infinite quantity.
 
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.

That’s pretty much were I stand. I can’t say any more.
OK.
 
“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.
Did God not also make the lowly tick? Did he not also perfectly craft lime disease? If these things also scream “creator” what type of being might one expect to encounter from this evidence? Would “full of endless love” necessarily spring immediately to mind?
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.
Would this be the same designer who might unleash the fury of a volcano to similarly destroy this perfect ecosystem? Kindly consider that if the concept of design and designer is properly understood, is it not necessarily true that the one who might create a species must needs be responsible for the consequences of it following along with its intended (or otherwise) design? More simply, if mankind were designed by a perfect god, would it not be rational to assume that any actions performed by that mankind would have been desired by such a creator?

If not, would that not suggest that either:

a) the design was imperfect?
b) the design was broken by an outside force?
c) the design was purposefully created broken?
d) the design was purposefully created with a desire that it would break of its own accord?
e) the design was purposefully created with a desire that it might be capable of breaking of its own accord?

Therefore would not all actions taken by this design necessarily be under the purview of the creator itself? Could it be claimed that at any point things might not be going “according to plan” should the plan have been initiated by a perfect being?
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.
Is this entirely accurate given that much of the world loved Mother Theresa? Also, do not most of mankind truly love their children? Are not most in awe of a beautiful scene from nature? Are not most calmed by a serene summer breeze near the ocean? Is it to be assumed that none of these are to carry this 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.
An interesting illustration. Thank you.
 
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.
Similarly, might it not be suggested that there could be no same proofs that might serve to lead you away from Christianity? Is this not the reason many claim that atheists “choose” to disbelieve based on the same evidence that Christians “choose” to believe?
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.
Perhaps this might be considered arrogant, but what might be considered more accurate:
  1. Thousands of brilliant scholars first heard of Christianity after becoming fully adult and came to believe in it based on clear criteria derived from years of impartial study?
  2. Thousands of brilliant scholars first heard of Christianity during their developmental years and subsequently identified reasonable criteria for maintaining their belief?
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.
Might it not similarly be claimed that there is nothing in atheism that might lead to a conflict between non-faith and reason?
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?
Might not one suggest a few?
  1. A single, unified religion whose members existed in obvious harmony.
  2. A similar message delivered to diverse peoples worldwide from a fairly unified point in time.
  3. The ability of members in good standing of said religion to be capable of making more of a difference against the world’s many problems.
  4. That medicinal healings of the faithful brought about through this church would render hospitals largely redundant.
  5. That true evil would be repelled from entering this church, let alone existing among its priesthood undetected.
  6. That its priests would be universally trustworthy and wise–led by the Holy Spirit in all things.
 
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.
Thank you for your efforts.
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.
Fair enough.
 
It does depend on the purpose of the book. Why do you think the bible was written?
As a record of a nation’s history/mythology?
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.
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.
Is that to suggest that faith in the discerning powers of the Holy Spirit was at a low ebb?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top