Explain the justice of hell.

[steve_b]

Does this not then suggest God is able to change his mind?

It merely shows consequences applied.
J:

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?

Knowing in advance what will happen, doesn’t mean God intended it, i.e. He forced it to happen. Knowing redemption is part of the plan as soon as Adam fell, shows the benevolence of God.
J:

If God is able to provide Mary and Jesus with Immaculate Conceptions,

Not IC’s but IC. The IC refers to Mary’s conception.
J:

why might he choose not to do so for the rest of mankind?

Would have been nice, but He didn’t ask you or I for our imput.
J:

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?

As the link indicated, Magus was considered the 1st herestic. Yet he had some followers. Look how many people followed various heretics throughout history. What’s the anecdote? provable evidence that refutes such people.
J:

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

True
J:

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?

That quote compared contrasts, “life and death, blessings and curses.” We are the ones who are to choose between them.

Is there an alternative to hell? yes it’s heaven
Is there an alternative to being lost in the flood? Yes it’s get into the ark
Is there an alternative to listening to Satan in the garden? Yes obedience to God.

There was always a choice.
J:

Would it further include the withholding of the ability of all to be Immaculately Conceived?

Don’t reduce it to withholding but what choices are given

The choice is,

Faith in Jesus, faith in His Church and sacraments, and do what ever He says. i.e. keep His commandments = heaven

or

don’t do any of this and possibly = hell
J:

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?

By walking you almost to the edge of a very high cliff, with alot of jagged rock at the bottom, do I really have to tell you not to go too close to the edge? Are discriptions of the consequences of falling off the cliff, a coercion, or a motivation not to fall off the cliff?
J:

Is it possible to refuse the will of God?

It’s done all the time. It’s the consequences that aren’t always felt immediately
J:

If God was able to harden the heart of Pharaoh against Moses, might he not equally have been able to soften it?

As I recall, each plague given to Pharoah was designed as a test to soften Pharoah. Instead Pharoah got bolder with each plague, and after the last plague, still not getting the message,THEN God hardened Pharoah’s heart.
J:

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?

We are made with rational souls. No matter how hard one tries, some people just won’t cooperate.
J:

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

You think you have others that will work?
J:

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

depends on what you think is contradictory
J:

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?

What are you doing to increase trust? What obsticles are you putting in the way?

 

[davidv]

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.

This is not quite right. Purgatory is a place, or state, of cleansing, not repentance. We must repent before death.

{snip}

 

[steve_b]

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?

Let me give you an example of all the people who qualify. Do you see a theme here?

• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How many people do you know are involved in fornication or adultery or various forms of immorality? Think it’s a small number who do this? Think only the mentally retarded or insane, engage in these acts that will send them to hell if they die in these sins? The warnings are there. The consequence is real. Look how many people on this planet ignore the warnings. BTW, any sin that can send one to hell, is a mortal sin.

People in these sins as scripture warns, are one heartbeat away from hell.
J:

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?

The time to change is before one dies NOT after. By the time one dies, the die is cast. No second chances.
J:

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?

Memory, intellect, and will, are fully functional in the next life. For heaven it’s great beyond belief. For hell, Imagine your worst day. Now imagine that day getting worse and worse because it’s never ending. No letting up. No break. Torment Forever.

 

[minkymurph]

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?

It would, and many do because of that. Is it necessary for them to feel the full effects in order to give up? People are not ignorant of the message of the Gospel, or belief in God and Hell. Many choose not to believe it, and unlike smokers they don’t have an addiction. There are others for whom belief does not come easy, but at least on occasion have a desire to believe. Perhaps lack of belief may constitute an ‘addiction’ of sorts, and is something individuals may struggle with throughout their lives. Belief comes easier to some people and not others. Like not smoking comes easy to the non-smoker but not the one addicted. Many smokers have a desire not to smoke and wish they had never started, but continue to do so because it is an addiction.

Those plunged into Hell may well desire and alternative. However, while they may want an alternative to their particular Hell, sharing the eternal life of God is not one of them. We have a saying in my part of the world, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it.’ In other words, there are people who want God ‘on offer,’ simply for the purpose of rejecting him - or taking what’s good from God when it suits them without obligation in order to avoid experiencing anything they don’t want to. Those in Hell want the option not of choosing God, but rejecting God. Those in Heaven don’t want rejection of God as an option.

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.

It would. People do many things to distort the image of God, and consequently bear a considerable degree of responsibility for loss of faith in God.

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?

Because the don’t want the alternative. Those in Hell will not turn to God. If they would, genuinely that is, they would not be there.

 

[minkymurph]

This is not quite right. Purgatory is a place, or state, of cleansing, not repentance. We must repent before death.

Yes, your right to correct me on that. Purgatory is not for the unrepentant, and those in Purgatory have not rejected God. Thank you for pointing that out. The way I phrased my post was misleading.

However, I have a theory part of that cleansing is full realization of what sin has done to us and others we may have sinned against, which we may not fully realize in this life because we are unable to, and we feel sorry for the way we damaged others. So in that sense we may be more fully repentant, or repentance may be more complete if you catch my drift? Of course it is a theory.

 

[jmvizanko]

You might say that belief is an act of the will inasmuch as people willingly hear or turn away evidence.

If you avoid the evidence because you don’t want to hear it sure. But if you hear the evidence, or even seek or ask about the evidence, you have no choice about what you think of the evidence. I find the arguments against the Christian god, especially the problem of hell, to be extremely convincing. I didn’t choose that, its what makes the most sense to me. And I never turned away from the arguments on either side. In fact, I love discussing them with both the people that I agree and disagree with.

 

[jmvizanko]

Why not? Many thousands do so every day, despite the explanations for it that have been given.

The question was could YOU do it? Can you honestly tell me that right now, you could 100% just spontaneously decide that Christianity is false? Because I would bank on no, unless you find it necessary enough for the answer to be yes that you would lie.

 

[steve_b]

The question was could YOU do it? Can you honestly tell me that right now, you could 100% just spontaneously decide that Christianity is false? Because I would bank on no, unless you find it necessary enough for the answer to be yes that you would lie.

From the “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft

Chapter on hell, issues covered

10 issues at stake in the doctrine of hell

1. 
   *]The trustworthiness of Scripture and the Church
   *]The trustworthiness of Jesus
   *]the existence of propositional data
   *]the infinite importance of earthly choices
   *]the freedom of the will
   *]the objectivity of good and evil
   *]the reason for a savior
   *]the consequence of indifference
   *]the need for Christ’s sacrifice
   *]the basis for believing in God’s love
   
   13 objections answered
   1. 
      *]Contrary to God’s love
      *]Contrary to justice (the subject of this thread )
      *]contrary to omnipotence
      *]contrary to human freedom
      *]contrary to human sanity
      *]contrary to the mortality of Jesus
      *]effects are fear, despair, and hatred
      *]prevents the joy of heaven
      *]vastly overpopulated
      *]makes evil eternal
      *]thwarts God’s purpose
      *]unendurable by human nature
      *]instinctively monstrous and intollerable
      
      If you’re interested, you should pick up a copy.

 

[davidv]

The question was could YOU do it? Can you honestly tell me that right now, you could 100% just spontaneously decide that Christianity is false? Because I would bank on no, unless you find it necessary enough for the answer to be yes that you would lie.

What conditions do think could possibly trigger such spontaneity?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

It merely shows consequences applied.

Knowing in advance what will happen, doesn’t mean God intended it, i.e. He forced it to happen. Knowing redemption is part of the plan as soon as Adam fell, shows the benevolence of God.

If a child is banished from his father’s home, might the child consider the father benevolent if he should allow the child to return 50 years later?

Not IC’s but IC. The IC refers to Mary’s conception.

Was not Jesus’ conception equally immaculate?

Would have been nice, but He didn’t ask you or I for our imput.

Indeed.

As the link indicated, Magus was considered the 1st herestic. Yet he had some followers. Look how many people followed various heretics throughout history. What’s the anecdote? provable evidence that refutes such people.

Was it not your position that the Jews might be considered blameworthy for failing to note the messiah in their midst given his provision of signs and wonders? Would not these same Jews have then been potentially blameworthy for failing to heed the signs of Simon Magus?

True

That quote compared contrasts, “life and death, blessings and curses.” We are the ones who are to choose between them.

Is there an alternative to hell? yes it’s heaven
Is there an alternative to being lost in the flood? Yes it’s get into the ark
Is there an alternative to listening to Satan in the garden? Yes obedience to God.

There was always a choice.

If one were to place a nutritious snack next to a poisoned chocolate cake and then turn to a child and admonish him not to eat of the cake prior to leaving the room, would the community extoll the virtues of the one by proclaiming the benefits he awarded to their children? Would the community mourn any less for the child who might have chosen poorly?

To clarify, in order to be termed benevolent would one not have to provide only what is good, rather than good and evil in equal portions?

Don’t reduce it to withholding but what choices are given

The choice is,

Faith in Jesus, faith in His Church and sacraments, and do what ever He says. i.e. keep His commandments = heaven

or

don’t do any of this and possibly = hell

By walking you almost to the edge of a very high cliff, with alot of jagged rock at the bottom, do I really have to tell you not to go too close to the edge? Are discriptions of the consequences of falling off the cliff, a coercion, or a motivation not to fall off the cliff?

No, but would not your demeanor necessarily be suspect in having me brought to a cliff edge in order to peer at a very clear danger?

However, is this description properly analogous to God’s activity? Consider, who, in one’s group of acquaintances, might so desire to hurl themselves from a cliff edge that the dangers must be explained in order to restrain them?

Is God’s role not more difficult in that he presents to mankind a series of activities in which many actually wish to engage only to promise them a reward of Hell for the partaking?

Is God’s role not more akin to stating to one’s child, “You may continue to freely play video games, but if you do not stop and proclaim your love for me by sundown I will throw you from the house”?

It’s done all the time. It’s the consequences that aren’t always felt immediately

But is it not necessarily the case that it must be God’s will that his will might be denied?

As I recall, each plague given to Pharoah was designed as a test to soften Pharoah. Instead Pharoah got bolder with each plague, and after the last plague, still not getting the message,THEN God hardened Pharoah’s heart.

Seemingly Pharaoh’s heart became increasingly hardened prior to each plague.

What benign being might use torment as a means of achieving obedience?

We are made with rational souls. No matter how hard one tries, some people just won’t cooperate.

Perhaps it may be true that “No matter how hard one tries, some people just won’t cooperate,” but what of almighty God? Is it true that no matter how hard he tries, some will not cooperate?

You think you have others that will work?

It might be boastful to claim so, but terms observed elsewhere appear to be more suitable, yes.

depends on what you think is contradictory

Choosing merely one instance to suggest a range of contradictions:

After the resurrection, how long did Jesus linger on Earth before again ascending to Heaven?

What are you doing to increase trust? What obsticles are you putting in the way?

Does not this discussion on this site suggest trust? Is it not potentially trusting to ask questions in the hopes of gaining fuller understanding?

Alternately, in a relationship between inequalities, why might it ever be considered necessary for the weaker party to prove trustworthiness to the stronger?

 

[jmvizanko]

What conditions do think could possibly trigger such spontaneity?

Well none that you have control over, which is my whole point.

For instance, I remember the moment I was not a Catholic anymore (I was raised one). I was 19, I was standing in church and I thought to myself, “why do I believe this? the only reason is because I was raised to.” I didn’t choose to have this thought. And the answer was simply what made sense to me. And I haven’t heard or seen a reason to go back since. If it happens to be true, perhaps some lucky thought or event will convince me its true. But until then, if it is true, I’m damned through no fault of my own.

 

[Lochias]

Well none that you have control over, which is my whole point.

For instance, I remember the moment I was not a Catholic anymore (I was raised one). I was 19, I was standing in church and I thought to myself, “why do I believe this? the only reason is because I was raised to.” I didn’t choose to have this thought. And the answer was simply what made sense to me. And I haven’t heard or seen a reason to go back since. If it happens to be true, perhaps some lucky thought or event will convince me its true. But until then, if it is true, I’m damned through no fault of my own.

You were raised Catholic, and unless your Catholic upbringing was truly abysmal, you had the resources and abilities to try to come to grips with your crisis of faith. Did you ask your priest about it? Did you follow his advice, if so? Did you research the early Church fathers and ask for the advice of others in your church? If not, you really can’t claim that it’s through no fault of your own. You’re privileged to have access to the full deposit of faith in the Church; if you’re not making use of it, that’s no one’s fault but your own.

 

[davidv]

Well none that you have control over, which is my whole point.

For instance, I remember the moment I was not a Catholic anymore (I was raised one). I was 19, I was standing in church and I thought to myself, “why do I believe this? the only reason is because I was raised to.” I didn’t choose to have this thought. And the answer was simply what made sense to me. And I haven’t heard or seen a reason to go back since. If it happens to be true, perhaps some lucky thought or event will convince me its true. But until then, if it is true, I’m damned through no fault of my own.

Where you forced to accept that thought? By what or whom?

If you could refuse to believe what you were taught, why could you not refuse to believe a little voice in your head saying not to believe it?

You had a clear choice to make, believe or not. You were not coerced to make the choice you did. Therefore you are fully responsible for that choice. The majority of the fault is clearly on you.

 

[jmvizanko]

Where you forced to accept that thought? By what or whom?

I was forced to accept that thought by the fact that it was convincing.

If you could refuse to believe what you were taught, why could you not refuse to believe a little voice in your head saying not to believe it?

Because there wasn’t any voice that I was deciding to listen to or not, there was a thought, and I had no control over what I thought about that thought. Unless I decided to get a flashy memory eraser from Men in Black and blast away that thought from my memory, and then perhaps never had it again, how could I have done it any differently?

You had a clear choice to make, believe or not. You were not coerced to make the choice you did. Therefore you are fully responsible for that choice. The majority of the fault is clearly on you.

You can insist it was a choice, but it wasn’t. I didn’t choose to leave Catholicism because I wanted to or chose to, I left Catholicism because it stopped making sense to me. Could you, right now, choose to find Catholicism illogical?

 

[jmvizanko]

From the “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft

Chapter on hell, issues covered

10 issues at stake in the doctrine of hell

1. 
   *]The trustworthiness of Scripture and the Church
   *]The trustworthiness of Jesus
   *]the existence of propositional data
   *]the infinite importance of earthly choices
   *]the freedom of the will
   *]the objectivity of good and evil
   *]the reason for a savior
   *]the consequence of indifference
   *]the need for Christ’s sacrifice
   *]the basis for believing in God’s love
   
   13 objections answered
   1. 
      *]Contrary to God’s love
      *]Contrary to justice (the subject of this thread )
      *]contrary to omnipotence
      *]contrary to human freedom
      *]contrary to human sanity
      *]contrary to the mortality of Jesus
      *]effects are fear, despair, and hatred
      *]prevents the joy of heaven
      *]vastly overpopulated
      *]makes evil eternal
      *]thwarts God’s purpose
      *]unendurable by human nature
      *]instinctively monstrous and intollerable
      
      If you’re interested, you should pick up a copy.

1. 1. 
      In the mail. (couldn’t find a copy to download)

 

[davidv]

I was forced to accept that thought by the fact that it was convincing.

Because there wasn’t any voice that I was deciding to listen to or not, there was a thought, and I had no control over what I thought about that thought. Unless I decided to get a flashy memory eraser from Men in Black and blast away that thought from my memory, and then perhaps never had it again, how could I have done it any differently?

You can insist it was a choice, but it wasn’t. I didn’t choose to leave Catholicism because I wanted to or chose to, I left Catholicism because it stopped making sense to me. Could you, right now, choose to find Catholicism illogical?

Please explain how convincing equals forcing. English is my only language, and never in more than 5 decades have I ever seen or heard the two equated. I think you are making excuses for what is appearing to be decision made in haste with very little data and thought put into it.

What I choose, or not choose, is not relevant to what you chose.

Dealing effectively with thoughts is called self control. It is done when the intellect doesn’t allow feelings to have the last say.

 

[jmvizanko]

Please explain how convincing equals forcing. English is my only language, and never in more than 5 decades have I ever seen or heard the two equated. I think you are making excuses for what is appearing to be decision made in haste with very little data and thought put into it… Dealing effectively with thoughts is called self control. It is done when the intellect doesn’t allow feelings to have the last say

Convincing equals forcing in this instance because I had no choice but to agree with what was more convincing. There was no lack of self control, and feelings had nothing to do with it. I had a thought. The conclusions I had because of that thought were what they were.

I don’t really think there is any point in us discussing this any more. You insist I had a choice / do have a choice to believe or not, and I am telling you it is not a choice. You also insist I have a choice without agreeing that you have the same choice. Why can’t you answer the question? Can you or can you not, right now, of your own free will, think that Christianity is illogical?

What I choose, or not choose, is not relevant to what you chose.

True, but the reason I ask if you could “choose” is that I am trying to point out why this is not a choice anyone can make. You could not choose to think Christianity is illogical right now because you don’t think it is and you have your reasons. Unless you had an emotional reason, like somebody died and you blame god, there is no way you can choose whether or not you think its true, and even then you would have to lie to yourself to not believe.

 

[davidv]

Convincing equals forcing in this instance because I had no choice but to agree with what was more convincing. There was no lack of self control, and feelings had nothing to do with it. I had a thought. The conclusions I had because of that thought were what they were.

I don’t really think there is any point in us discussing this any more. You insist I had a choice / do have a choice to believe or not, and I am telling you it is not a choice. You also insist I have a choice without agreeing that you have the same choice. Why can’t you answer the question? Can you or can you not, right now, of your own free will, think that Christianity is illogical?

Why would I? I have already examined the evidence and made a choice to believe it. Notice, I wrote “made a choice”. I was not forced to accept it. There was plenty of contrary evidence available. Likewise, you made a choice based on your analysis of the evidence.

My claim is that your analysis was faulty.

True, but the reason I ask if you could “choose” is that I am trying to point out why this is not a choice anyone can make. You could not choose to think Christianity is illogical right now because you don’t think it is and you have your reasons. Unless you had an emotional reason, like somebody died and you blame god, there is no way you can choose whether or not you think its true, and even then you would have to lie to yourself to not believe.

Your point is moot as shown above. In addition, you have not provided me with any additional evidence that would call into question my choice to believe.

So, to connect this back to the OP. We are all given sufficient information on which to determine whether we choose to love and serve God or not. For those who choose not to, they will be granted their wish to not be by Him.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

This is a possible scenario, but is it the same as having chosen with full consent of the will? Is the concept of God’s provision for free will and free choice to be reduced to such a technicality of choice as outlined in the above?

To clarify, if a counselor were to scold a troubled youth by laying all of his actions in the past that have today resulted in a final suspension from school, would the possible realization on the part of the child that the expulsion was justified be the same as the youth merely choosing to drop out from the onset?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

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

If one is a Catholic, the terms appear clear enough.
If one is a Baptist, the terms appear clear.
If one is a Muslim, the terms appear clear.
If one is a Hindu, the terms appear clear.

That the terms do not agree one with the other, however, is somewhat troubling.

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.

Is not following the teachings of the Catholic Church a form of staking one’s soul on a given interpretation of God’s will? Might it be understood why it may not be particularly helpful to consider the Bible a living text if many exist who might offer to interpret its details differently?

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.

Who might be found to prefer a regime that might offer only torment as payment? What gentle and kind king might exile troublemakers to such a place?

How is it possible to imagine anyone who might purposefully choose a domain that might be symbolized as a lake of fire full of endless torment?

If Hell exists as a realm of eternal punishment is it not necessary that either God is required to be a tyrant to send any there or else individuals who might willingly so choose it must clearly be possessed of an intellect clearly below par?

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.

An honest desire for truth has led here, but has equally led elsewhere.

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

Thus far it appears to be a message apparently lacking concern over its overall consistency. God the tyrant may have become God the gentle, but perhaps not. Perhaps he is neither…or both?

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.

This is a fair point. As a pilgrim on this life’s journey, one may find the malleability of scripture to be of some advantage; as a seeker of eternal truth one might find same to be problematic.