Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

I hope Steve b doesn’t mind me jumping in and taking a reply to his post. It’s just that these questions are so good.

It’s unlikely a parent would derive comfort from the knowledge his daughter deserved her punishment. However, it’s unlikely a good parent would think it unjust for their daughter to be sent to prison for a crime if that is the law. For example, not many people would be of the opinion incarceration for murder unjust. That does not mean you would be delighted about your daughter being in prison, but you would probably feel more grieved by the fact she committed murder than the prison sentence.

Of course there’s all sorts of scenario’s could be introduced. To name but a few, should her actions be considered a crime, did she get a fair trial, was the sentence imposed severe? That’s why we talk about God’s judgement rather than the merely the ‘sentence’ imposed.

Of course they would. That’s what the parable of ‘The Prodigal Son’ is all about

Is not the Prodigal Son based on the changing of one’s lifestyle prior to a final sentence being imposed? In the situation previously described, the daughter has been sentenced and served a portion of her time, but only then has had a change of heart. If a parent might feel true pleasure in such a scenario, why might one expect God to feel otherwise?

To clarify: if the nature of Hell is final, why might one consider a perfect God, enamored with ideal justice, required to see the sentence through with no possibility of reprieve?

I don’t think they would experience joy, but is it just?

Would a parent truly consider the necessity of justice being served as the primary consideration?

If I get there before you I’ll let you know.

More seriously, while Heaven is a joyful place, being in Heaven is also about the fulfillment of life. The fulfillment being reunited with God and sharing the life of God eternally. What that means is only fully realized in heaven. As for forgetting those we shared our life with, I really don’t know how we will cope with that in heaven. I just believe we will.

OK

Catholics believe in what’s called the kenosis - the ‘emptying’ of God. Paul speaks about this. (In either Galatians, Ephesians or Philippians - I can’t remember which.) Put simply, what this means as God, God can cease to know He is God. Individual Catholics differ on when it was fully revealed to Jesus, as human, that he was God. The reality is we don’t know, but we believe in the kenosis. However, there is a prevailing belief it was at the point of death. Catholic’s also believe in the Holy Trinity, three persons of God in one. As such, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not cease to know they were God. Jesus did as he was the one that took on flesh and became Incarnate. In order to become fully human, he would have had to cease to know he was God. If he did not, then he was not fully human. This does not mean he ceased to be God, but rather ceased to know.

If Jesus was emptied of all Godly knowledge, how might it have been possible for him to have performed miracles?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In my opinion, we cannot fully explain the justice of hell because we are not God. We don’t fully understand it (some obviously understand more, and some less, but nobody fully understands) because we simply aren’t capable of it. Our minds are not infinite, our understanding is not infinite. God’s is.

Someday we will understand it fully. Until then, just as with so many mysteries, we can take it on faith (because it has been revealed to us by God that it IS just), or we can insist on putting it into the little tiny ‘box’ which is our human understanding and then complaining that since we can’t understand, what is revealed must therefore be wrong or evil based on our lack of ability to fully understand. Which to me is absurd because nobody, not even Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, fully understands how the universe came about or functions, and yet nobody complains that since we don’t understand it, it is somehow evil, or doesn’t exist because what HAS been revealed to us isn’t fully comprehended by us.

 

[steve_b]

If God does not change, why might it appear that his will changed regarding the shutting of mankind out of Heaven?

He didn’t change His mind. He warned Adam. Adam didn’t obey so the consequences happened.
J:

Did he not apparently arrive in the form of Jesus with the primary purpose of reopening Heaven’s gates?

True.
J:

If God did had always intended Jesus to appear from the moment the gates were closed, why might they have been originally closed?

It was the consequence of Adam’s sin that prevented humanity from entering heaven. Before Adam, there were no human beings made to the image and likeness of God.
J:

What might it have been that they freely chose to disbelieve? Was it that Jesus was not God?

That was certainly the biggest issue
J:

Or was it that God was not Jesus?

It could be said that way too.
J:

In either instance, might this choice have been more likely based on in-depth information provided by Jesus, or a mere disinclination to follow what many may have considered to be a false prophet?

He more than proved Himself. That’s why ALL the beginners (converts) were Jews.
J:

Might it not equally be considered that none expected to mistake the arrival of the messiah?

As you know, many Jews didn’t make the mistake…
J:

Might not “Vengeance is mine” be considered different from “He shall come to judge the living and the dead?” Is vengeance generally associated with proper justice?

Yes it’s different.
J:

To clarify, how much revenge did God truly wish to seek against mankind for his failings? How much revenge was seemingly desired by Jesus?

refering back to the previous entry, I’d say justice not revenge. As Jesus said Himself, He came to do the will of the Father…perfectly.
J:

Was this not suggested by members of this forum?

Not sure. I haven’t read all the posts of others.
J:

OK. Are these the best terms and conditions possible?

Since they are the only ones we have, I’d say they are the best terms and conditions.
J:

Was not St. Thomas given the singular privilege of physically verifying the wounds of Christ? Who, since that time, has been granted an equal privilege? How many atheists might so remain if granted such a non-ambiguous sense of the divine?

If you see, you don’t need faith. The definition of faith is

Heb 11:1
faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

That’s why Jesus said to Thomas

[Jn 20:29]
You have believed because you see. Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.
J:

If Jesus might not violate an individual’s free will, might it be equally said that he would support it? If not, why not?

Yes He supports free will. That’s what makes us responsible for what we do.
J:

Is there glory in God filling a fiery pit with imperfect creations?

If we had no free will, then no there would be no glory. But then, why would God incarnate, live, teach us what to believe, suffer a horrible death, rise from the dead, ascend back to heaven, for creatures that have no free will? Who weren’t made to His image and likeness? Nor could possibly live as He expected of us? The fact He became like us in all things but sin, established His Church, His sacraments, left specific orders for all of us to follow, says to me, He expects us to do His will, because we can.

 

[minkymurph]

Is not the Prodigal Son based on the changing of one’s lifestyle prior to a final sentence being imposed?

It may be to someone. My understanding of the Prodigal Son is he is not only forgiven, he doesn’t have to ask for it. The father sees him from a long way off, and the fact is making his way back is enough for the father to forgive. Not only does the father forgive him, he embraces him and throws a party to celebrate the fact he has returned. The story suggests a change of heart which we can assume then leads to a change of lifestyle. There is nothing in this story I can see that relates to judgement.

In the situation previously described, the daughter has been sentenced and served a portion of her time, but only then has had a change of heart. If a parent might feel true pleasure in such a scenario, why might one expect God to feel otherwise?

I would imagine the parent would feel pleasure they had a change of heart, as God does when we have a change of heart. I don’t imagine a loving parent would derive an emotion such as pleasure from their child’s incarceration. However, if the child knew what the penalty was for the crime prior to committing it, was fully culpable and aware of all the consequences, and through their own free will chose to commit it, can it be said they have chosen prison for themselves? It is also an established fact may convicted of serious crimes such as rape re-offend.

To clarify: if the nature of Hell is final, why might one consider a perfect God, enamored with ideal justice, required to see the sentence through with no possibility of reprieve?

I would say if someone should be given a reprieve, they would not be in hell in the first place. My understanding of it is those who are in hell have no desire for God’s love or forgiveness, or to share the life of God and never will have, for eternity. Hell is the absence of God’s love and forgiveness. Those in hell will know what it is to exist without God’s love. However, the will never want it, and never want to share the life of God, or the life of others who do. I also have a theory ‘hell’ is of one’s own making, in that people create their own hell - but it’s only a theory.

Would a parent truly consider the necessity of justice being served as the primary consideration?

No. Would you say God does?

If Jesus was emptied of all Godly knowledge, how might it have been possible for him to have performed miracles?

As I understand it, Jesus performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Someone else might pick me up on my theology here, but this is how I understand Catholic teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Jesus did not cease to be God. Being emptied of all Godly knowledge means not knowing, not ceasing to be. In becoming Incarnate, Jesus had both a divine nature and a human nature that were joined, what is called the hypostatic union.

Catholics also believe in the Trinity. Meaning, Jesus did not cease to be in union with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. The union being the sharing of the divine nature.

In other words, there are many means by which is was possible for Jesus to perform miracles.

 

[jmvizanko]

In my opinion, we cannot fully explain the justice of hell because we are not God. We don’t fully understand it (some obviously understand more, and some less, but nobody fully understands) because we simply aren’t capable of it. Our minds are not infinite, our understanding is not infinite. God’s is.

Someday we will understand it fully. Until then, just as with so many mysteries, we can take it on faith (because it has been revealed to us by God that it IS just), or we can insist on putting it into the little tiny ‘box’ which is our human understanding and then complaining that since we can’t understand, what is revealed must therefore be wrong or evil based on our lack of ability to fully understand. Which to me is absurd because nobody, not even Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein, fully understands how the universe came about or functions, and yet nobody complains that since we don’t understand it, it is somehow evil, or doesn’t exist because what HAS been revealed to us isn’t fully comprehended by us.

Well you would think he would have at least made us understand it enough that its not a legitimate reason to believe he doesn’t exist for millions of people.

 

[jmvizanko]

Faith in your parent’s, is what prevents you from sticking your fingers in the electric sockets…until you are old enough to learn and understand the reasons why…and decide for yourself!

Your parents are present and can explain things to you. Your god essentially left a post-it note (the Bible), amongst many other post-it notes (other religion’s sacred texts), and hoped you grew up alright, following only one of the post-its. Some parent.

One who knows there IS an afterlife, should show you, teach you, help you…until you are old enough to learn and understand the reasons why…and decide for yourself.

And of course that one “who knows there IS” an afterlife knows it is the afterlife they believe in most likely, if you look at the numbers, because somebody that “knows there IS” the afterlife did the same thing to them when they were a kid. I think the people, that is the ones that even examine their inherited faith, find the arguments more convincing in favor of what they believe, not the other way around, in general.

 

[mitex]

For those adventurous Catholics I highly suggest Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” for a totally different and radical concept of hell.

It shook my traditionalism and clinging to the Anglo-Catholic traditions of the Episcopal High Church to my very foundations of how I understood Christianity.

I won’t go into detail but read that and your definition of hell will be radically different from when you started.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well you would think he would have at least made us understand it enough that its not a legitimate reason to believe he doesn’t exist for millions of people.

Why is it a ‘legitimate reason’ for ‘millions of people’ not to believe? Who decides what is ‘reasonable?’ Who decides what is true? And is it GOD who did not ‘make us understand well enough’, or is it we who do not make the effort?

 

[davidv]

Your parents are present and can explain things to you. Your god essentially left a post-it note (the Bible), amongst many other post-it notes (other religion’s sacred texts), and hoped you grew up alright, following only one of the post-its. Some parent.

This is a really obnoxious statement. Please learn what Catholism is before spouting off such nonsense. Jesus left us a Church, filled with people who are guided by the Holy spirit to instruct us. The Bible is not an instruction manual, it is a love story. Jesus did not write the Bible, members of His Church did.

And of course that one “who knows there IS” an afterlife knows it is the afterlife they believe in most likely, if you look at the numbers, because somebody that “knows there IS” the afterlife did the same thing to them when they were a kid. I think the people, that is the ones that even examine their inherited faith, find the arguments more convincing in favor of what they believe, not the other way around, in general.

Isn’t the opposite also true? Those who deny only accept the arguments supporting their position

 

[steve_b]

For those adventurous Catholics I highly suggest Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” for a totally different and radical concept of hell.

It shook my traditionalism and clinging to the Anglo-Catholic traditions of the Episcopal High Church to my very foundations of how I understood Christianity.

I won’t go into detail but read that and your definition of hell will be radically different from when you started.

I think I’ll stick with what Jesus described.

 

[jmvizanko]

Why is it a ‘legitimate reason’ for ‘millions of people’ not to believe??

Well its legimate to them. The arguments I have put forward in this thread are what I consider a logical reason to dismiss the existence of your god. You certainly don’t agree, but the point is that if he really cared what we believe, he could have given us more of a reason to easily accept the “justice” of hell. Instead, many find it illogical and therefore a good reason not to believe.

Who decides what is ‘reasonable?’ Who decides what is true? And is it GOD who did not ‘make us understand well enough’, or is it we who do not make the effort?

Well you can either just accept that hell must be just because god is perfect, and that there must be reasons for it being just that we just don’t understand, or, like me, you can not see any conceivable reason that a more intelligent being would find it just, and in the default position think that such a being would contradict perfection and therefore does not exist.

 

[jmvizanko]

This is a really obnoxious statement. Please learn what Catholism is before spouting off such nonsense. Jesus left us a Church, filled with people who are guided by the Holy spirit to instruct us. The Bible is not an instruction manual, it is a love story. Jesus did not write the Bible, members of His Church did.

Ok… include the church as part of the post-it note, because the church is not god, and it is not a direct interaction with a god. Many religions have a church and a body of theologians to instruct us. Its still an absent “parent.”

Isn’t the opposite also true? Those who deny only accept the arguments supporting their position

It certainly is. Which is why, once again, what religion you are is largely arbitrary. You can’t pick what side of the arguments you think wins, and you also can’t pick whatever biases you were handed going into it.

 

[steve_b]

Well its legimate to them. The arguments I have put forward in this thread are what I consider a logical reason to dismiss the existence of your god. You certainly don’t agree, but the point is that if he really cared what we believe, he could have given us more of a reason to easily accept the “justice” of hell. Instead, many find it illogical and therefore a good reason not to believe.

Well you can either just accept that hell must be just because god is perfect, and that there must be reasons for it being just that we just don’t understand, or, like me, you can not see any conceivable reason that a more intelligent being would find it just, and in the default position think that such a being would contradict perfection and therefore does not exist.

Hell exists because the soul, (the person) created in the image and likeness of God

• is ungrateful to God for all He’s done for that soul
• is disobedient to God who created them, for their entire life
• has no love for God who created them

their obstinacy is the signature they put on their declaration that they don’t recognize God, and don’t belong to God. Obstinancy is also the key of hell. And at the death of that person, God eternalizes the direction that person chose to persue in this life.

There’s no injustice there. Only justice.

 

[davidv]

Ok… include the church as part of the post-it note, because the church is not god, and it is not a direct interaction with a god. Many religions have a church and a body of theologians to instruct us. Its still an absent "parent.

Actually you are quite wrong here. God in the person of Jesus is the head of the Church. The Church is a divine institution, not a human one. This the only logical explanation for its survival for nearly 2 millenia, despite vicious attacks from within and without.

It certainly is. Which is why, once again, what religion you are is largely arbitrary. You can’t pick what side of the arguments you think wins, and you also can’t pick whatever biases you were handed going into it.

This is only the case if one assumes that truth doesn’t matter.

 

[minkymurph]

If I may, I’d like to introduce some counter-arguments concerning the atheist position on the existence of God. If God does not exist, the justice of hell is irrelevant. The justice of hell is only relevant if God does exist. In reading posts on this thread, this appears to be the issue rather than the justice of hell.

Laying out the various proposals will take a while, so I appreciate it if posters can bear with me.

 

[minkymurph]

If I may, I’d like to introduce some counter-arguments concerning the atheist position on the existence of God. If God does not exist, the justice of hell is irrelevant. The justice of hell is only relevant if God does exist. In reading posts on this thread, this appears to be the issue rather than the justice of hell.

Laying out the various proposals will take a while, so I appreciate it if posters can bear with me.

In discussion with many an atheist, they present two challenges concerning belief in God; it can’t proven and therefore it is irrational to believe in God, and consequent to this, it’s somewhat unintelligent to believe in God and more intelligent to reject belief in God. Of course there are other reasons but I’ll stick to the above for now.

I have found there are atheists who accept life is not an x + y = equation. As human, everything we believe is not based on irrevocable evidence. We believe many things that cannot be irrevocably proven or established by empirical evidence. To hope and believe is an essential element of what it is to human. If we ceased to hope and believe, we would cease to be human, we would be Vulcan’s like Spock. In discussion with atheists they will readily apply this principle in many circumstances, as it can be established we believe many things that cannot irrevocably be proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence. Therefore, the atheist position a belief that cannot be irrevocably proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence is flawed.

 

[minkymurph]

In discussion with many an atheist, they present two challenges concerning belief in God; it can’t proven and therefore it is irrational to believe in God, and consequent to this, it’s somewhat unintelligent to believe in God and more intelligent to reject belief in God. Of course there are other reasons but I’ll stick to the above for now.

I have found there are atheists who accept life is not an x + y = equation. As human, everything we believe is not based on irrevocable evidence. We believe many things that cannot be irrevocably proven or established by empirical evidence. To hope and believe is an essential element of what it is to human. If we ceased to hope and believe, we would cease to be human, we would be Vulcan’s like Spock. In discussion with atheists they will readily apply this principle in many circumstances, as it can be established we believe many things that cannot irrevocably be proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence. Therefore, the atheist position a belief that cannot be irrevocably proven or established as a consequence of empirical evidence is flawed.

The second issue in question is, is it irrational to believe something that cannot be irrevocably proven or established by empirical evidence? Sometimes it is. However, it can be demonstrated we humans are not the most rational beings, and there’s a reason for that. Being irrational and unreasoned is part of being human, and in appropriate circumstances benefical. Life is messy and sometimes chaotic. Consequently, occasions when we can approach life from a clinically rational perspective based on irrevocable proof are the exception rather than the norm. Apart from that, who wants to lead a rational, reasoned existence? A degree of irrationality is much more fun. :extrahappy:

To illustrate, is falling in love rational and reasoned? I once read an excellent poem by a fellow student on the topic of falling in love. She described the ‘symptoms;’ the butterflies in the stomach, the anticipation of seeing the person one is in love with, blushing when they speak to you, so on and so forth. Anyone who has been in love will know what I’m talking about, but I will concede perhaps some do adopt a clinical approach to relationships and don’t know what I’m talking about.

When a couple decide to marry, or in this day and age move in together, have a family and may get married when they can ‘afford’ it, why do they make that decision? They make the decision based on belief in the person, and a strong element of hope.

They don’t sit down and analyse the relationship and establish irrevocable evidence they are choosing the ‘right’ one. They don’t know for certain if they become ill the person they have chosen to be with will stand by them, or vice versa. They hope they will. In practical terms, their decision may be partially based on the fact their partner has a good job. However, by and large it’s not the sole reason and people can loose their job. In which case, will their relationship survive? The reality is they don’t know, but hope they will.

Of course it can be argued you can see your partner and visibly spend time with them. It can further be argued many relationships fail, which lends weight to the irrational argument, and there are many factors which prompt couples to enter into a relationship. However, unless your one of these very practical people that believes in marriage of convenience the main reason people enter into a permanent relationship is their desire to be together based on their love for each other, and there are those rare occasions when the decision proves to be a good one. There are many other illustrations that could be offered to support this reasoning. Consequently, the atheist position belief in God should be rejected on the basis it is irrational is also flawed.

 

[minkymurph]

The third issue then is, is belief in God unintelligent?

I heard many an atheist say belief in God is ‘unintelligent’ because it is not ‘fact.’ I believe it was Socrates who said there are no such thing as ‘facts’ - there are notions and opinions but there are no ‘facts.’ But no matter.

We humans believe many things that cannot be categorized as ‘fact.’ Therefore, can believing something that is not a ‘fact’ be deemed ‘unintelligent?’ Reasonable, open-minded atheists who know something about education will agree speculative and imaginative thought is an essential element of cognitive development. There are those who would not concede this, and are of the opinion children and young people should be taught nothing but ‘fact.’ But thankfully it’s unlikely such atheists will ever control the education system.

Speculative and imaginative thought cannot be categorized as ‘fact.’ However, neither can it be categorized as ‘unintelligent’ due to the absence of ‘facts.’ The capacity to reason and engage in speculative and imaginative thought is an essential element of what it is to be human, and distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Although sometimes I wonder. Therefore, the atheist position belief in God should be rejected on the basis it is ‘unintelligent’ is also flawed, as it would appear this opinion is based on the argument it ‘unintelligent’ to believe anything that is not a ‘fact.’

 

[jmvizanko]

Actually you are quite wrong here. God in the person of Jesus is the head of the Church. The Church is a divine institution, not a human one. This the only logical explanation for its survival for nearly 2 millenia, despite vicious attacks from within and without.

And Allah through the prophet Muhammed forms a divine institution, not a human one… Once again, why doesn’t god just communicate directly with us? How do you know that whatever men do within the church or according to being “connected” with god is actually god? After all, Muslims would say the same things about their institutions and feelings.

This is only the case if one assumes that truth doesn’t matter.

How so? Just because the truth does matter does not mean you are capable of finding it when it comes to unanswerable questions. With those types of questions you are left with your best guess, which is formulated by your biases and which side of the arguments is most convincing to you, neither of which is something you can choose.

 

[jmvizanko]

Hell exists because the soul, (the person) created in the image and likeness of God

• is ungrateful to God for all He’s done for that soul
• is disobedient to God who created them, for their entire life
• has no love for God who created them

Except how can I be any of those things if I don’t even think God exists?

their obstinacy is the signature they put on their declaration that they don’t recognize God, and don’t belong to God. Obstinancy is also the key of hell. And at the death of that person, God eternalizes the direction that person chose to persue in this life.

I don’t “not recognize” god, I don’t think he exists. You can’t be in some kind of rebellious denial or opposition to something you don’t think exists.

And at the death of that person, God eternalizes the direction that person chose to persue in this life.

So god takes the unintentional mistake that somebody made in life and makes them unable to correct it for eternity. Why? What if they would have changed their mind if he had given them more reason to? Why wait till they die, then give them the proof they didn’t have, only to say it doesn’t matter what you think now, because you are dead and you will never get to change your mind, have fun in hell. Where is the justice in that?

It would be like me, say an absent father, getting back custody and saying that I had a rule you were supposed to follow, and since you didn’t, now I’m going to punish you severely. Where’s the sense in that?