Explain the justice of hell.

[minkymurph]

A change of heart prior to arrest (or after release) is one topic apart from what is being sought here: what is being examined is why God might devise a system in which change appears impossible once in Hell.

True - Hell is eternal and prison, no necessarily - so why use the illustration of being in prison?

Why do you think God devised a system in which change appears impossible? That one’s a bit too close to Calvin’s concept of pre-destination for me. I believe God gave us free will. Change is not possible once in Hell because the person has chosen not to change of their own free will, and will never choose it in spite of being in Hell.

I have a theory we catch glimpses of Heaven and Hell in this life. There are times we feel very close to God, other times we don’t. I’m sure you’ve heard people use the phrase, ‘I’m in Heaven,’ ’ or ‘I’m in Hell.’ Therefore, in this life we know what we are choosing. A person who believes in God and desires to share the eternal life of God, will seek him when they feel they are ‘in Hell,’ A person who does not - won’t. Those in Hell have no desire to share the eternal life of God throughout their lives, at the point of death and after. I also have a theory the physical condition of those in Hell is of their own choosing. Not liking what one has chosen of one’s own free will is not indicative of a change of heart in terms of a desire to share the eternal life of God.

 

[minkymurph]

To clarify, is it your belief that Jesus knew nothing of God other than what was taught to him by humans until a later contact with the Holy Spirit? Once so contacted, however, did he not necessarily, from that point onwards, share a potent longing for his return to Heaven?

In the initial stages yes. As a baby and a young child he would not have had the mental capacity to understand the deep things of God any more than any other human. I don’t know about sharing a potent longing for his return to heaven. Can you expand on that thought?

Further, when might this contact with the Holy Spirit have taken place?

‘Contact,’ for want of a better word, was made at his baptism. It was then the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, and his mission was revealed. He went into the wilderness to contemplate this and then returned to Nazareth, not as a carpenter but as a ‘prophet.’ His early preaching was similar to that of John the Baptist. As time went on, his mission expanded and he became a teacher and healer. Towards the end of his mission, Jesus knew of his impending death and believed in his subsequent Resurrection. Some believe he was certain of this. However, the counter-argument to that is if he knew for certain, he would not have needed faith and trust in God to the same degree that is asked of us.

Finally, if Mary and Jesus were both purportedly born without Original Sin, and thereby remained free from transgressions as a result, would not God’s apparent cursing of the rest of mankind (with being born under such auspices) be paramount to a willful participation in the destruction of much of humanity?

To clarify, if none were born with Original Sin would not all have apparently behaved as Mary and Jesus?

Finally, if Mary and Jesus were both purportedly born without Original Sin, and thereby remained free from transgressions as a result, would not God’s apparent cursing of the rest of mankind (with being born under such auspices) be paramount to a willful participation in the destruction of much of humanity?

In the first instance, Jesus was God. He did become fully human, but his nature was both divine and human. Consequently, his human nature did not sin. Catholics believe Mary was preserved of Original Sin as she was chosen to give birth not to a human child, but to the Incarnate God. The purpose of which was to restore humanity. Marian theology is intrinsically linked with the Catholic understanding of the Incarnation and is a whole discussion in itself.

It wouldn’t make much sense to destroy humanity and then save it. As far as I know, the human race was not cursed. I believe it may have been the ‘serpent’ that was cursed.

To clarify, if none were born with Original Sin would not all have apparently behaved as Mary and Jesus?

I would say if Adam and Eve had not committed the Original Sin, it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did. There is no doubt free will is a very difficult thing to explain in a way that can be considered satisfactory. I have a theory that sin is part of the process of becoming God-like in nature. I don’t mean that Original Sin had to happen, and I admit this theory is no more satisfactory than any other theory on sin. However, in life we learn more from mistakes and from dark times in our lives than we do from the good. Not to say we shouldn’t experience good times and enjoy them, but when we make mistakes and experience dark times, we often emerge a better better person. On the down side we can also emerge cynical and embittered. However, it is our choice whether we remain cynical and embittered, or not.

We can in order to know what good is, one needs to know what evil is. It is God’s will for all humanity to share his divine nature. Becoming God-like, that is a sharing of the divine nature of God, one not only comes to know was evil is, but rejects it.

 

[minkymurph]

Is it not seemingly important to understand that which is most urgent, as concretely as might be possible? How often might warning citations be allowed to whimsical interpretation? Are deadly dangers to be warned about poetically? Are traffic signals open to interpretation?

Can you give me an example?

Why might the atheist be suspect for noting that a god seemingly willing to treat the life of a human as sufficiently inferior to not even warrant unambiguous instructions (while still being held direly accountable for missteps) might not exist as described?

You’ve raised this point on a few occasions. In terms of ‘avoiding Hell,’ (not that that’s the primary purpose of the message of the Gospel ) what would you say God had made ambiguous or unclear?

 

[minkymurph]

Agreed. It does not appear justifiable to claim that a given belief in God is an “unintelligent” belief any more than it is to claim that an atheistic lack of belief is equally so.

I wouldn’t call an atheistic lack of belief ‘unintelligent.’ I may call it ‘unimaginative,’ or cynical. but not 'unintelligent

Having said that, I’m not of the opinion it is more intelligent to reject the existence of God, and I do think it’s a trendy, contemporary notion to dismiss belief in God as ‘unintelligent.’ What I was getting at is a belief the culture we live in labels ‘unintelligent’ may well be true, and an ‘intelligent’ belief may be false.

Of course the reverse may also be true and in fairness, I don’t think it is more ‘intelligent’ to believe in God. Belief in God is not about being intelligent. Perhaps this is another reason why contemporary western culture frowns upon it. What one believes depends on whether one is more concerned with truth, or having the ability to present ‘intelligent’ arguments. Truth and intelligence do not always go hand in hand.

I would also say resorting to dismissing someone else’s belief or lack of it as ‘unintelligent,’
would suggest little else can be offered as a counter-argument than ridicule. It’s very easy to simply ridicule what we don’t agree with - thus falling into the, 'I’m-right-because-what-I-think-is-more-intelligent-that-what-you-think trap, rather than being concerned with truth.

 

[minkymurph]

Further, if all goodness comes from God, and a sinner might choose an overabundance of chocolate cake and be fixated on its creamy goodness, would not an eternity in Hell seemingly rob them of their beloved chocolate cake along with every other future choice? Why might a lover of chocolate cake then choose to reside in Hell?

If chocolate cake is from God, could it not be termed that the sinner simply loves only a part of God, but overwhelmingly so?

Alternately, if chocolate cake is not of God, will it abound in Hell?

Hope no one minds, but I had to respond to this one.

Hell may not rob them of their beloved chocolate cake. Hell may be eating chocolate cake and nothing but chocolate cake for eternity. A lover of chocolate cake may well choose this. I reckon they would go off chocolate cake after a while. That doesn’t mean they have a desire to give up chocolate cake and eat their greens instead. I also reckon if they went back to an eternal life of healthy eating, in a short space of time they’d want the chocolate cake again

Ever heard the saying, ‘be careful what you wish for, it might just come true?’ While ‘old sayings’ can be intensely irritating, there’s a lot of truth in them. We humans have a nasty habit of striving tooth and nail for something we desire but when we get it, we don’t want it anymore. However, take it away and it becomes an object of desire once again.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes. Which proves God is a loving God beyond compare, and He doesn’t want anyone to perrish.

So with Jesus life death and resurrection, He made it possible for all to be saved.

Gen 3:15 describes the plan of God to save humanity immediately after Adam fell. This passage is called the protoevangelium, the fortelling of the good news, the Gospel to come. We’re living with the consequences of the fall, but we don’t have to be stuck with it for all eternity.

Does this not then suggest God is able to change his mind? Or is it your view that God had always intended for Adam and Eve to fall and had always intended to re-open Heaven’s Gates several thousand years later?

Do you have children…grandchildren…great grandchildren? If you were given a great inheritance but lost it, would you be able to pass onto your future generations what you lost? No.

We are all from Adam. We inherit from him, Adam’s nature after the fall. We inherit the downward pull to sin

If God is able to provide Mary and Jesus with Immaculate Conceptions, why might he choose not to do so for the rest of mankind?

He apparantly impressed a few followers. I suppose his claim to fame is, he’s considered the father of heresies, i.e. he was considered the 1st heretic…
newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm

But would it have been acceptable to follow him based on the signs he was purportedly able to perform? If not, why might it have been blameworthy for the Jews to refuse to follow Jesus after considering the signs he purportedly performed?

Even Paul was frustrated with his own people, and he made powerful arguments. All I can say, (this is my observation and opinion) the apostles went for the low hanging fruit. iow, they didn’t beat anyone over the head, they preached the good news and people who were disposed came easily. They didn’t spend much time with difficult people who weren’t interested. They moved on

This is possible, but would God have considered their behavior perfect?

There’s an OT passage I think summarizes this

“today I put before you life and death, blessings and curses, choose life” [Dt 30:19 ]

People really have been given free will by God. He doesn’t violate that.

Was not God’s message through Jesus: come, follow me…but woe to he who does not choose to do so?

Given all God has done for our benefit,

Would this include the creation of Hell and the flooding of the Earth? Would it perhaps also include the allowing of Satan into the Garden to trick mankind? Would it further include the withholding of the ability of all to be Immaculately Conceived?

He doesn’t force people to believe in Him.

Is not the creation of Hell and the very clear warnings of what God intends to do to those who do not believe a type of force known as coercion?

When people say they love God, but their actions and life style suggest differently, it’s probably safe to say they love God on their terms rather than His.

It is possible.

As I quoted on an earlier post,* “He desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth”*Therefore, He gives everyone the ability to say yes to Him. But through hardness of heart or mired down in sin, they just won’t come around

Is it possible to refuse the will of God?

If God was able to harden the heart of Pharaoh against Moses, might he not equally have been able to soften it? If God might be able to soften the heart of Pharaoh, might he not further have been able to soften the hearts of his chosen children? Or might it simply have been too much effort?

People HAVE tried to present different terms and conditions over the milleniums. Look at all the divisions from the Church for example, which btw, is condemned in the very scriptures these dividers profess to follow “alone”

Then how is it possible to claim that these terms are “the only ones we have?”

You’re assuming the evidence is lacking or at least un trustworthy…

Is the only alternative to assume the evidence to be trustworthy? Or is it possible to remain undecided in light of apparently contradictory information?

are you asking, why do bad things happen to good people?

No. Rather the question is if God deems our trust in him to be important, why might he choose not to rise to its defense when it should fail?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I refer back to the earlier quote

*“today I put before you life and death, blessings and curses, choose life” [Dt 30:19 ] *

The choice is there. Life or death, blessings or curses. Obviously God wants us to always choose Life and Blessings. But the reality of free will is, one could choose curses and death. Not what God wants but the choice is there as are the consequences. That’s why there is hell. And people don’t accidently go there.

Should it not then be empty? For whom from among one’s acquaintances might willingly choose death, curses and destruction in place of life and peace unless necessarily mentally disabled?

Imagine, if you will, the worst tyrant this world has ever known standing before the throne of God. Apparently God does not want the destruction of this tyrant so it is up to the fellow, himself, to choose. Is it likely that an individual habituated to power and privilege might choose for himself a torturous dungeon in which to dwell? Would he not instead consider it opportune to ascend to God and reside in one of the many mansions therein available?

Consider, as a spirit bereft of body, what might the tyrant yet crave that might keep him apart from God? There is nothing for him to conquer, nothing to hold, nothing to dominate, he has no need for gold, he no longer hungers, no longer fears his enemies, no longer needs shelter, no longer has ideologies to defend, no longer requires a harem, no longer has an inclination to drink…what is left of the tyrant that might have him choose torment?

Jesus didn’t suffer so we don’t have to suffer

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It’s true, to my knowledge, The Prodigal Son is not about judgement. It’s about repentance and forgiveness. I believe the point in question related to a child in prison. The Prodigal Son was in a sense, ‘in prison,’ - one of his own making. The Father did not shield him from the consequences of his actions; by making sure nothing untoward happened to him as a consequence of squandering his inheritance. This does not mean the Father enjoyed seeing him in the state he was in, or had no regard for him. What would the son have learned if his Father had made sure nothing untoward happened to him? That he could do what he wanted and the Father would make sure there where no consequences? Not a good lesson for life. However, when the son saw the error of his ways and desired to return to his Father, the Father not only forgave him but was overjoyed, ran to embrace him, and celebrated his return.

In relation to what we were discussing, a loving parent would not enjoy their child being in prison. However, it would be in the child’s interests to ensure they never face the consequences of their actions. If they commit a serious crime, the chances are they will go to prison. The parent hopes their child never will commit a serious crime, and they teach them values in order to avoid that. However, there comes a point in time when the child must choose whether to embrace those values for themselves, or reject them.

Might not the chief difference reside in the fact that the Prodigal Son was still free to change his mind based upon the consequences brought about by his poor choices, whereas the soul in Hell is apparently unable to do so even though they might share a similar sentiment?

Why might God be as pleased as the father of the Prodigal son in seeing a soul returning to him after experiencing what it might be truly like to be apart while on Earth, but once the same soul might arrive in death it might be condemned to Hell without further reprieve?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

True - Hell is eternal and prison, no necessarily - so why use the illustration of being in prison?

Why do you think God devised a system in which change appears impossible? That one’s a bit too close to Calvin’s concept of pre-destination for me. I believe God gave us free will. Change is not possible once in Hell because the person has chosen not to change of their own free will, and will never choose it in spite of being in Hell.

Who, among one’s acquaintances, might one encounter who might never change an opinion in spite of suffering unbearable torment for the choice?

I have a theory we catch glimpses of Heaven and Hell in this life. There are times we feel very close to God, other times we don’t. I’m sure you’ve heard people use the phrase, ‘I’m in Heaven,’ ’ or ‘I’m in Hell.’ Therefore, in this life we know what we are choosing. A person who believes in God and desires to share the eternal life of God, will seek him when they feel they are ‘in Hell,’ A person who does not - won’t. Those in Hell have no desire to share the eternal life of God throughout their lives, at the point of death and after. I also have a theory the physical condition of those in Hell is of their own choosing. Not liking what one has chosen of one’s own free will is not indicative of a change of heart in terms of a desire to share the eternal life of God.

If an individual enjoys a debauch lifestyle and as a consequence keeps apart from God, how might the same individual in death desire to continue keeping apart from God when no further debauchery might be possible?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In the initial stages yes. As a baby and a young child he would not have had the mental capacity to understand the deep things of God any more than any other human. I don’t know about sharing a potent longing for his return to heaven. Can you expand on that thought?

Once a communication with himself was made and his mission divulged, would Jesus not have intuitively grasped the certainty of his return to Heaven? If knowledge of the exact details of Heaven were to remain obscure, but the concept itself to be confirmed without ambiguity, would not anyone live thereafter in potent longing for their return?

Would a child not long to arrive in Toyland should they be convinced not only of its existence, but also of their place as its sovereign?

Would an adult filled with the knowledge of certain retirement in a scenic vista free from financial cares not long for the eventuality if they knew it was guaranteed to occur in spite of certain difficulties to be endured along the way?

Alternately, what cancer sufferer might fail to endure a host of difficult medical procedures with equanimity whilst holding within them certain knowledge of their impending full recovery?

‘Contact,’ for want of a better word, was made at his baptism. It was then the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, and his mission was revealed. He went into the wilderness to contemplate this and then returned to Nazareth, not as a carpenter but as a ‘prophet.’ His early preaching was similar to that of John the Baptist. As time went on, his mission expanded and he became a teacher and healer. Towards the end of his mission, Jesus knew of his impending death and believed in his subsequent Resurrection. Some believe he was certain of this. However, the counter-argument to that is if he knew for certain, he would not have needed faith and trust in God to the same degree that is asked of us.

This is an interesting proposition: that Jesus might have obtained knowledge of his mission on a gradual basis.

In the first instance, Jesus was God. He did become fully human, but his nature was both divine and human. Consequently, his human nature did not sin. Catholics believe Mary was preserved of Original Sin as she was chosen to give birth not to a human child, but to the Incarnate God. The purpose of which was to restore humanity. Marian theology is intrinsically linked with the Catholic understanding of the Incarnation and is a whole discussion in itself.

Would not a fair criticism potentially be: Jesus was provided with powers denied the rest of mankind so his stoicism during torture and his resistance to sin were of supernatural origins and so hardly noteworthy?

It wouldn’t make much sense to destroy humanity and then save it. As far as I know, the human race was not cursed. I believe it may have been the ‘serpent’ that was cursed.

Would it not appear to be a curse to live with the burden of Original Sin?

I would say if Adam and Eve had not committed the Original Sin, it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did. There is no doubt free will is a very difficult thing to explain in a way that can be considered satisfactory.

In such a case surely it would be only the one cast out for having committed such a sin while the rest might remain?

I have a theory that sin is part of the process of becoming God-like in nature. I don’t mean that Original Sin had to happen, and I admit this theory is no more satisfactory than any other theory on sin. However, in life we learn more from mistakes and from dark times in our lives than we do from the good. Not to say we shouldn’t experience good times and enjoy them, but when we make mistakes and experience dark times, we often emerge a better better person. On the down side we can also emerge cynical and embittered. However, it is our choice whether we remain cynical and embittered, or not.

We can in order to know what good is, one needs to know what evil is. It is God’s will for all humanity to share his divine nature. Becoming God-like, that is a sharing of the divine nature of God, one not only comes to know was evil is, but rejects it.

This is possible, but should Original Sin have been a requirement, why might its commission have been blameworthy? Alternately, is it only by experiencing a collision that one might become a superior driver?

 

[minkymurph]

Might not the chief difference reside in the fact that the Prodigal Son was still free to change his mind based upon the consequences brought about by his poor choices, whereas the soul in Hell is apparently unable to do so even though they might share a similar sentiment?

Why might God be as pleased as the father of the Prodigal son in seeing a soul returning to him after experiencing what it might be truly like to be apart while on Earth, but once the same soul might arrive in death it might be condemned to Hell without further reprieve?

The Prodigal Son was genuinely repentant. Those who are genuinely repentant are not condemned to Hell.

As far as God’s ‘feelings,’ which in a human sense God does not have as He is not human, I don’t know what God feels towards those in Hell. We talk of God in terms experiencing human emotion. How God experiences them is, as yet, unknown to me.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Can you give me an example?

Imagine, if you will, a traffic sign that instead of merely proclaiming, “STOP” might instead cautiously remind, “CHOOSE WISELY.”

You’ve raised this point on a few occasions. In terms of ‘avoiding Hell,’ (not that that’s the primary purpose of the message of the Gospel ) what would you say God had made ambiguous or unclear?

If scripture is able to be interpreted to support contradictory positions, how might one properly stake one’s eternal soul upon it? If “works apart from faith” is equal to “faith without works” in attaining salvation or if “unconfessed sins will not be forgiven” while “Jesus died once and for all for our sins so that everyone is permanently forgiven” are equally supported how might one on the outside make any meaningful progress?

If one is able to be told with certainty that Jesus will cast evil souls into Hell while at the same time another of the same faith might claim that souls choose to send themselves to Hell, is it not impossible to properly believe both?

Is the outsider not sooner or later led to understand that no truth is possible with such alternate interpretations? If no such truth, what purpose in amending one’s life to conform to one over another? Is it not as possible that all are equally mistaken?

Is it to be understood that an omniscient God foresaw such confusion to be brought about by his words, but chose to do nothing to avoid it? If so, how might it be understood that such a god truly loves one and desires a “personal” relationship in which one is expected to throw oneself at his feet in heedless abandon, trusting implicitly to his message? If the message appears untrustworthy, how is one to not properly extrapolate and consider the composer of same to be suspect?

To clarify, if a cartographer were to publish a map in which landmarks might be open for interpretation, how much trust might one realistically place in said map? How much trust might one have in the map maker?

 

[minkymurph]

Who, among one’s acquaintances, might one encounter who might never change an opinion in spite of suffering unbearable torment for the choice?

What I believe is not liking what we suffer does not in itself turn one’s heart towards repentance, or a desire to share the eternal life of God. I’ve seen many a person suffer in this world, refuse to admit they were wrong, or reconcile with family members they have alienated, even when faced with their own death. I seen many a person that would refuse as much as a kind word to someone they have wronged. I’ve seen people who by their own choice, remain in a ‘hell’ of their own making in this world. It doesn’t surprise me such people will do the same in the next. I have no idea who such individuals may be. But I believe the exist. I once saw an interesting book in a library I keep threatening to read. It’s a true story of a British Army Officer who served in Africa. I can’t remember which country. He states he came to believe in God because he has seen the devil. Things he experienced were so evil, his only explanation was there was a devil, so he came to believe in God. This guy was a hardened soldier. Personally I think we in spoiled west have come to believe in nothing, because we think we are intellectually above belief, and don’t have enough problems.

If an individual enjoys a debauch lifestyle and as a consequence keeps apart from God, how might the same individual in death desire to continue keeping apart from God when no further debauchery might be possible?

If the person still desired the debauchery, and turned to God because they couldn’t have it, that wouldn’t be true repentance would it?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I wouldn’t call an atheistic lack of belief ‘unintelligent.’ I may call it ‘unimaginative,’ or cynical. but not 'unintelligent

It is possible it is unimaginative and/or cynical. It is also possible that it is a non-belief based on convenience as it seemingly absolves the one from any commandments which might otherwise prove irksome.

Alternately, might it not be posited that in some cases it might merely be a sincere attempt at honesty?

How might one truly wish to “prefer” a finite end to one’s life over an existence without end? Would not a loving deity personally concerned for the welfare of each be a true pleasure to hold within one’s heart in contrast to the consideration that one is permanently alone and that one’s pursuits are without merit or meaning?

Assuming an atheist is not merely a theist in outright rebellion, would it be acceptable to allow that a sincere search for truth might allow one to trod an atheistic path without lacking imagination or harboring cynicism? If so, might it be anything other than a necessarily solitary and sorrowful mind that might look out upon such a void and proclaim it true?

Having said that, I’m not of the opinion it is more intelligent to reject the existence of God, and I do think it’s a trendy, contemporary notion to dismiss belief in God as ‘unintelligent.’ What I was getting at is a belief the culture we live in labels ‘unintelligent’ may well be true, and an ‘intelligent’ belief may be false.

Agreed.

Of course the reverse may also be true and in fairness, I don’t think it is more ‘intelligent’ to believe in God. Belief in God is not about being intelligent. Perhaps this is another reason why contemporary western culture frowns upon it. What one believes depends on whether one is more concerned with truth, or having the ability to present ‘intelligent’ arguments. Truth and intelligence do not always go hand in hand.

I would also say resorting to dismissing someone else’s belief or lack of it as ‘unintelligent,’
would suggest little else can be offered as a counter-argument than ridicule. It’s very easy to simply ridicule what we don’t agree with - thus falling into the, 'I’m-right-because-what-I-think-is-more-intelligent-that-what-you-think trap, rather than being concerned with truth.

Precisely so–particularly among those devoted to a cause based on its trend value.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Hope no one minds, but I had to respond to this one.

Hell may not rob them of their beloved chocolate cake. Hell may be eating chocolate cake and nothing but chocolate cake for eternity. A lover of chocolate cake may well choose this. I reckon they would go off chocolate cake after a while. That doesn’t mean they have a desire to give up chocolate cake and eat their greens instead. I also reckon if they went back to an eternal life of healthy eating, in a short space of time they’d want the chocolate cake again

If Hell is a place of misery, who is providing the chocolate cake? Also, if one should choose a Hell of chocolate cake and another a Hell of carrots and broccoli, might both trade miseries for a spell?

More specifically, however, how is one to enjoy chocolate cake without a palette upon which to do so?

Ever heard the saying, ‘be careful what you wish for, it might just come true?’ While ‘old sayings’ can be intensely irritating, there’s a lot of truth in them. We humans have a nasty habit of striving tooth and nail for something we desire but when we get it, we don’t want it anymore. However, take it away and it becomes an object of desire once again.

Precisely so.

 

[ncgolf]

Here is a snippet of a dialog I had a few years back …

Originally Posted by AnAtheist
I am not confusing that. I am just pointing to some contradictions made by some people here, why or how someone goes to Hell. I totally agree with you, that the view of Hell, you have expressed so far, is intrinsically consistent.

My Response:
One other thing … I am sure people have said one chooses to go to Hell. I think that is your burr. Here is why one can say that. From the Catholic standpoint, at death, you see Divine Truth, before you, all your life laid out before you. Everything. Remember you are in the midst of Truth itself, you cannot lie or explain your way out of your actions. You see all things as God sees them, the motives behind actions, deceit, love … all things. You, therefore see your punishment as just, as a logical and just consequence to your actions. There is no arguing the point at that time, remember you are in the presence of Truth itself. So the soul knows the outcome, either eternal life or hell and there is no argument … in a sense the soul has chosen.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Prodigal Son was genuinely repentant. Those who are genuinely repentant are not condemned to Hell.

Is repentance available after death? If not, might one still desire to repent after being thrown in Hell? If not, why not?

As far as God’s ‘feelings,’ which in a human sense God does not have as He is not human, I don’t know what God feels towards those in Hell. We talk of God in terms experiencing human emotion. How God experiences them is, as yet, unknown to me.

If God is able to express his joy at the conversion of a sinner in human terms (which he apparently invented), why might one imagine he is unable to express similar sentiments in similar situations?

Alternately, if God is unable to express proper human emotions, what type of relationship is possible with him? How might one be able to meaningfully connect with such a being?

 

[minkymurph]

Imagine, if you will, a traffic sign that instead of merely proclaiming, “STOP” might instead cautiously remind, “CHOOSE WISELY.”

Ah, ah. Your not getting away with that one. :tsktsk:

What do you think God has made ambiguous in terms of ‘avoiding hell?’

If scripture is able to be interpreted to support contradictory positions, how might one properly stake one’s eternal soul upon it? If “works apart from faith” is equal to “faith without works” in attaining salvation or if “unconfessed sins will not be forgiven” while “Jesus died once and for all for our sins so that everyone is permanently forgiven” are equally supported how might one on the outside make any meaningful progress?

Personally speaking I wouldn’t stake my eternal soul on an interpretation of scripture. I believe the bible is a book of guidance. However the bible is not a dead text, it’s a living text, and it is from that the bible derives it power.

If one is able to be told with certainty that Jesus will cast evil souls into Hell while at the same time another of the same faith might claim that souls choose to send themselves to Hell, is it not impossible to properly believe both?

Not if being cast into Hell is what one wants. However, we do not know how judgement or the casting into hell physically happens. The point is, those in Hell have chosen to reject God throughout their life, at the point of death, and on discovery they have an immortal soul they still reject God. Imagine if they could choose for themselves what Hell would be like for themselves, what do you think they would choose?

The bible often uses symbolic language. I’m guessing your quoting from Revelation, (I may be wrong?) which is certainly symbolic. Revelation must be the most controversial book of bible in relation to interpretation. The truth is, we don’t really know what Revelation means, as it has not been fully ‘revealed’ yet.

Is the outsider not sooner or later led to understand that no truth is possible with such alternate interpretations? If no such truth, what purpose in amending one’s life to conform to one over another? Is it not as possible that all are equally mistaken?

Of course. As Pilate said, ‘What is truth.’ Many interpretations do obscure truth. All are equally mistaken in some sense, because no one can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly. Not even the Catholic Church claims that. As Catholics, we believe Jesus revealed divine truths to us relating to his person which are recorded in scripture. That’s what we believe to be true, and these truths are contained in the Creed.

If one has an honest desire for truth, one often needs to search one’s heart as well as one’s mind. I a great believer in following my instincts and gut feeling when it comes to what I believe to be true. Reason being, it always served me so well. If your gut feeling tells you it’s true, it probably is. If it tells you it isn’t, chances are it’s not. However there are those occasions we get it wrong, and there are those who’s skills in this area aren’t as finally tuned as others, perhaps because they don’t believe in it.

Is it to be understood that an omniscient God foresaw such confusion to be brought about by his words, but chose to do nothing to avoid it? If so, how might it be understood that such a god truly loves one and desires a “personal” relationship in which one is expected to throw oneself at his feet in heedless abandon, trusting implicitly to his message? If the message appears untrustworthy, how is one to not properly extrapolate and consider the composer of same to be suspect?

Depends what one think’s God’s message is.

To clarify, if a cartographer were to publish a map in which landmarks might be open for interpretation, how much trust might one realistically place in said map? How much trust might one have in the map maker?

That depends on what one is trying to find. Is one is trying to find something specific, one may feel let down by the map maker. If the ‘landmarks’ change over time as life does, a map that is open to interpretation would be beneficial.

 

[minkymurph]

Is repentance available after death? If not, might one still desire to repent after being thrown in Hell? If not, why not?

Catholics believe in Purgatory, so they believe their is repentance after death. Therefore, someone who would repent after death would be in Purgatory, not Hell.

If God is able to express his joy at the conversion of a sinner in human terms (which he apparently invented), why might one imagine he is unable to express similar sentiments in similar situations?

OK. Let’s get something straight here. kpeople:
I am not God. I don’t know how God ‘thinks’ and ‘feels.’ Why don’t you ask Him?

Alternately, if God is unable to express proper human emotions, what type of relationship is possible with him? How might one be able to meaningfully connect with such a being?

He doesn’t express emotion in a human way because He is not human, he is God. God expresses ‘emotion’ in a divine sense which is above human. We can meaningfully connect with him because we are created in His image, meaning we share the nature of God, and because God (Jesus, 2nd person of the Trinity) became human.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What I believe is not liking what we suffer does not in itself turn one’s heart towards repentance, or a desire to share the eternal life of God. I’ve seen many a person suffer in this world, refuse to admit they were wrong, or reconcile with family members they have alienated, even when faced with their own death. I seen many a person that would refuse as much as a kind word to someone they have wronged. I’ve seen people who by their own choice, remain in a ‘hell’ of their own making in this world. It doesn’t surprise me such people will do the same in the next. I have no idea who such individuals may be. But I believe the exist.

Is it not possible that individuals might maintain such a status quo based on incomplete information? If a smoker were to be given an opportunity to actually physically feel his/her death brought about by cigarettes, would it not provide a powerful reason to quit? Would not a soul actually plunged into Hell likely prefer an alternative?

I once saw an interesting book in a library I keep threatening to read. It’s a true story of a British Army Officer who served in Africa. I can’t remember which country. He states he came to believe in God because he has seen the devil. Things he experienced were so evil, his only explanation was there was a devil, so he came to believe in God. This guy was a hardened soldier. Personally I think we in spoiled west have come to believe in nothing, because we think we are intellectually above belief, and don’t have enough problems.

It is possible. Another narrative of which I am familiar is the concept that many are divesting themselves of faith in response to the radical hate emanating from certain Islamic regimes. It would seemingly appear that, confronted with the possibility that the same God of love in which they once believed might equally be claimed to support such a culture of intolerance, many have chosen to hold God to account by severing their relations with him–much as one might abandon a beloved uncle who was found to be secretly supplying intelligence information to the Chinese. The belief that the uncle was a man of pure goodness might be understandably tarnished.

If the person still desired the debauchery, and turned to God because they couldn’t have it, that wouldn’t be true repentance would it?

What if they turned to God simply because they no longer desired debauchery? Could a disembodied soul enjoy any of the pursuits of the flesh? With nothing to enjoy, why might consigning itself to Hell appear desirable?