Explain the justice of hell.

[minkymurph]

Similarly I have been told that we will never understand the concept of reincarnation in this life as it is described by the Sikh faith. This is in response to a question of how it might be possible for the Sikh to experience each and every life form given that some number in the millions with very short lives and some merely in the hundreds with very long lives.

There are many things we will never understand in this life. Mind you, I can understand reincarnation up to a point. I wonder if we do in sense ‘get reincarnated?’ I mean, if our bodies are burnt to ash or decay into peat, do we get eaten by worms and birds and become part of something else, and in a sense never die? Maybe it’s not so much we are reincarnated but in contemporary terms, recycled?

Clearly this is the case, but at some point must one not settle on what is perceived to be closest to truth regardless?

Yes, but that does not mean one should not be open to changing one’s perception in light of greater understanding.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You can know it by studying the logic and philosophy behind it. And then, honestly, what you think doesn’t change the truth. I can think that hot stove isn’t hot all I want, but it still burns. In order to see sin as a hot stove, you’re going to have to dig deep into the theology and logic behind sin. Praying for the grace to understand would help you out immensely, but only if you’re willing to actually give it a try.

My argument stands on fact, yours stands on opinion and whatever else may be holding you back from looking at the facts with a willingness to try them out.

If amidst one’s searching for truth one discovers an excerpt such as the following, how might one be able to “choose” to reject it entirely without full and proper consideration? Is the rejecting done before a full reading is complete (such as at the first objectionable statement); is it done prior to allowing oneself to contemplate the full scope of the passage; or is one to remain neutral regarding the content until one is able to seek a higher authority than one’s self in order to follow their method of repudiation? If so, what if one of higher authority refuses to read the missive? Is one then left to merely forget the words in good faith?

"*Problem 13 : Do as I say, not as I do

With the benefit of hindsight, I am truly baffled that I was able to remain a Christian for so long when I consider the double standards of the bible’s god. He issues commandments to his followers and then breaks them with impunity. He tells us not to kill, then kills millions upon millions. He says “In your anger, do not sin” and then spends entire chapters ranting about his wrathful vengeance on those who don’t acknowledge him. He says “Love your enemies” and then smites his own enemies at the drop of a hat (with the exception of Satan who inexplicably continues to get a free pass). When humans do any of the aforementioned (unless sanctioned by god), then it is sin. When god does those things or tells others to do so, he is moving in “mysterious ways” and we just have to accept it.

Furthermore, Christians are told to automatically forgive those who wrong them (even if the person guilty of the wrongdoing hasn’t even sought forgiveness), but god only forgives those who beg and plead first. It would seem that even though god is supposed to be the bigger “person”, his mercy is conditional, whereas the mercy of humans is to be granted freely. When humans choose not to forgive, it’s a sin, when god does, he is being “just”.

Christians justify these double standards in their minds a number of ways. One way is to say that god is “sovereign” and can therefore do as he wishes, and another is to assert that since god is supposedly all-loving, that anything he does, even if it seems barbaric, cruel or hypocritical to us is still good. However, the latter argument renders the term “good” meaningless; it’s no longer about the perceived morality behind certain actions, but whatever god chooses to do at any given moment. This sends out mixed messages to the believer whose sense of right and wrong is essentially defined by god’s caprice. The logical conclusion to this sort of thinking is psychotic or disturbed people committing atrocities in the name of god. The problem with the former argument is that it makes god no different from a despotic or corrupt ruler since god is free to do whatever he wishes, yet his creation have to do exactly what he says. This particular teaching is clearly designed to make people compliant and subservient and therefore easier to control by any authority figure, particularly as the bible states that all authoritative institutions are sanctioned by god.*"

new.exchristian.net/2011/09/14-problems-with-christianity-part-ii.html

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If you held to the Catholic lifestyle and beliefs long enough, you would begin to see a difference, despite what you feel now. The beauty and grace and peace you would feel would be enough to convince you that the loss of those things would indeed be Hell.

This is largely true: once one is able to embrace a worldview that largely explains all relevant details one achieves a greater sense of peace and belonging.

It takes work, willingness and time. Nobody here can take on the burden of personal proof for you. You must be willing to shoulder the larger share of the work for yourself.

But have you tried what you’ve learned?

Yes.

Are you willing to be proved wrong in the long run?

Yes.

If so, why not? Do you like the way things are for you now?

No.

Your unwillingness to step beyond the boundaries of what you can see with two fleshy orbs filled with water in your skull is what is setting you back, friend. Many people here have demonstrated to you that Hell is just, not a punishment but a choice, but you are unwilling to see it.

Surely none would choose an eternity of torment for any reason.

I have found that, many times, people with views like yours have an inflated sense of entitlement in the world…something bad goes wrong, they cannot fix it, so they come to others who have a deeper understanding of such things and demand to be shown proof. Why? What do you think we know that you don’t? Can you answer me that question?

If that’s not your view, then why are you here? To “understand” us?

Yes.

What does that accomplish, if you don’t wish to share the same view? What does “understanding” us do for you that kind tones and genteel speech wouldn’t accomplish? Do you feel left out?

Yes.

Do you view us as some form of entertainment, or a way to try and bolster your own beliefs in the face of others who cling to beliefs almost the polar opposite of yours? Why are you even interested in the justice of hell? As far as your own fleshy brain can prove, you’re not going there, none of us are going there. Why demand an explanation at all?

Truth demands an explanation.

 

[steve_b]

Is this to suggest that God might find gambling with the souls of his creation to be an enjoyable pass-time?

No
J:

To clarify, if the decisions of the Jews over whom to believe might be so casually written off as “a wrong choice,” irrespective of whether such a choice might lead to an eternity of damnation, how might one properly regard a god involved in administering such tests of whimsical content, but lasting consequence?

The content is salvation from hell. Jews were given the 1st chance at salvation. Then it was opened up to everyone else (all us Gentiles). As time goes on, more and more are drawn to the truth. It’s good God is patient.
J:

Is this not a sufficiently simple example of “blessings and curses?” Is it not also the same form of example as provided by the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden?

No matter what the fruit actually was, obedience to God was the issue. Blessings and curses were mentioned up front with Adam and Eve.
J:

Fair enough, but in the above example the consideration was on what is provided, rather than what is chosen. Is not a benevolent deity who provides Pharaoh with the choice of the death of all the first born required to deliver on this threat? In what instance might a benevolent being comprised solely of good be capable of providing such an alternative?

Satan put the notion into Adam’s ear that surely God won’t go through with what He warned. Aren’t you voicing the same objection? Surely God won’t go through with what He warned. If He does surely He’s not a loving God?

The difference between us and all creation, (leaving out angels for this example) we are the only part of creation who can defy the one who made us. We can say no to God. Nothing else in all creation can do that.
J:

Let us consider this sin. Typically this is not a sin of evil intent, but one of self-control (such as gluttony). Is its commission truly worthy of having an eternity of torment as a consequence?

I didn’t make the rule or the consequence for violating the rule. I’m only required to obey the rule.
J:

Certainly he may, but is it possible for one to truly love a tyrant? If God’s image might be misconstrued as such, is not the obligation on the part of the omnipotent being so maligned to clarify his message? If no clarity is forthcoming, might one not conclude that God must be satisfied with this image?

Tyrants don’t put up with all the abuse God did at the hands of His own creatures. Tyrants just don’t do that. .

By the same token, He gives everyone a chance to repent. If they don’t, He eternalizes the direction they are already going in.
J:

Is “obey me or I will disinherit you” a common proposition suggested at the onset of a loving relationship–particularly one in which one party might be infinitely more powerful than the other? Is it not suspected that a being of infinite love might have been capable of a greater showing of initial affection?

In your world, is there any room for punishment for wrong doing? The more serious the wrong the more serious the punishment?

As I said in an earlier post, one who only takes God on their terms rather than His, have created an idol.
J:

When one occupies a position of authority, is it not considered courteous to explain why a task should be accomplished in a given manner? Is this not evidence that the individual being so addressed is of sufficient value to warrant the effort?

No matter how good the explanation, you know, there are going to be those who obey and those who don’t…true?.
J:

What might prove more efficient: a troupe of employees performing actions without understanding, or all contributing their individual parts to an understood whole?

Rather than employees think children. Do some children get disinherited?
J:

If not benign, what might best describe a being purportedly comprised entirely of love?

Using that word instead, “what {descriptive word} being might use torment as a means of achieving obedience?”

Screwey as it seems, people know that drinking and driving is illegal yet they do it anyway inspite of knowing the law and knowing the possible insane consequences and horrible torment they can cause while behind the wheel impared by alcohol.

since torment doesn’t curb DUI, and fear of the torment of hell doesn’t change behavior either, then maybe you’re looking at this all wrong. Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if it was no different than what we have here in this existence. So therefore, hell is for those who refuse to change, who prefer disobedience to obedience, and disorderd appetites. And God eternalizes their preference. Likewise, heaven is for souls who love doing the will of God. Both people are contrary to each other. Therefore, they are seperated for all eternity.
J:

If a perfect doctor might be considered one who might be capable of curing every illness, and a perfect psychologist might be one able to cure even the most ardent neurotic, would not a perfect, loving, God be able to cure every sinner?

If the medicine is there but one won’t take it, or do what is required, who’s fault is that? Remember, force is against free will and God doesn’t violate our free will

 

[minkymurph]

Is it not more the case that God need not necessarily be manifestly a tyrant, but instead merely not a being comprised of loving concern for mankind?.

Again, that comes down to one’s image of God. The Christian image of God is derived from the Incarnation.

Alternately, might it not be equally possible that Jesus simply was not truly God?.

Of course it’s possible. Two contrasting answers to the same question may both be possible. However, what is possible is not the same as what is true. Therefore, the question is which is true as opposed which is more feasible on the balance of probabilities.

This is possible. Alternately I have been told by a Catholic priest that all practitioners are in the infancy of their faith until they are able to fully embrace the Charismatic tradition.

Quite a sweeping statement. Does he personally know all practitioners from the birth of the Church until contemporary times that have not embraced the Charismatice tradition, and is it possible for him to know that in terms of their faith they never progressed beyond infancy?

I would guess the Charismatic tradition is something that works for him, and no doubt many others, which is fine for them. However, it cannot be assumed no one will progress beyond infancy iin terms of faith until they are able to fully embrace this tradition.

 

[steve_b]

If one might be condemned to an eternity of torment for professing an unbelief in a deity, what might such a sentence possibly reveal of the nature of such a being? Might one immediately assume it was:

1. Loving?
2. Compassionate?
3. Just?
4. Egotistical?
5. Emotional?
6. Vengeful?
7. Perfect?

The deity you speak of has already made us with a disposition to want to know Him. iow, He’s stacked the deck in His favor for our benefit. One’s denial of Him is an act of the human will that contradicts how He made us.
J:

If one is certain that the punishment meted out to the unbeliever might be considered perfectly just, would they be willing to administer it if so asked?

That’s not how it works.

Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
J:

To clarify, should one such as jmvizanko be condemned to Hell on this basis, would one such as yourself be willing to torment him at God’s behest?

Where is the source of these ideas you have about God and people of faith?
J:

Thus one might be mistaken in this life, but because the mistake is properly explained to them they are then able to embrace an eternity of torment without argument?

If one were to die and discover that Allah were the reality, might an explanation of one’s error in following the wrong god be sufficient to allow one’s acceptance of a resulting eternal punishment?

As I said in an earlier post, God gave us a rational soul. We then are predisposed to reason from evidence. One who looks for every reason under the sun not to believe, is really not innocent of their ignorance but responsible for it.

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

***1791 *This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Anyone may choose eternal punishment. People who choose to follow God for a time in this life may reject Him in the end. People who experience doubt and disbelief may in the end accept God. We hope those we love and we ourselves make choice to share the eternal life of God, but cannot make future predictions.

OK

One would think so.

I have no idea what makes people choose evil over good. All I know is there are people who do it, and we see this in action every day of our lives. This is the one thing we have irrevocable empirical evidence for. We may not have irrevocable empirical evidence for the existence of God or life after death, but we certainly have irrevocable empirical evidence there are people who will choose evil over good for reasons best known to themselves. I’m not talking about human failings, or even serious mistakes people make. I’m talking about a conscious choice made on a regular basis. I can’t in my wildest dreams imagine how some people make the choices they do. The stories I could tell you about the choices people make. I don’t know how some people can sleep in their bed at night knowing the way they have treated others, but I’ve no doubt they can. Such people have and infinite number of opportunities to put right the harm they caused others, and of course themselves, but choose not to. They choose to be in anguish in this world because of what they do to themselves. Let’s face it, such people couldn’t be very content, yet they persist in the same path. This may sound an awful thing to say, and I don’t enjoy saying it, but I believe I have met people who have evil so much there is no way back for them. This is why I believe in Hell, and believe it is just. They will not enjoy Hell, but feeling sorry for oneself, or feeling resentment at the fact others reap a reward you don’t is not true repentance or a desire to share the eternal life of God. If you have never encountered such individuals, you’re very fortunate.

Catholics believe the choice is ‘ongoing.’ As I said, there are people who choose to follow God for a time but may reject Him in the end. A lover of God can’t imagine how this could happen, but we know it does. We have opportunities to choose good over evil every minute of the day. We can choose to be rude on the road and show no consideration for other drivers. We can choose to be unkind to someone vulnerable just because we can. We can choose to be fair in our dealings with people or cheat others just because we can. We can tell the truth or choose to lie. Not out of embarrassment or to save our skins which is quite human. I mean lies calculated to cause harm to others. I know ‘evil’ may sound over-dramatic in reference to some of the things I have listed, but we become evil by making a practice of continually rejecting good to the point where there is no return.

So, a soul rejects Hell by engaging in the constant battle of choosing good over evil, and acknowledging the battle can only be won with God’s help.

Fair enough. Thank you.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There are many meanings, and this would be one of them. However, in our spoiled, western world we take water for granted. People in other countries do not. Water is a precious commodity and considered to be life giving, which introduces another spiritual dimension.

Yes, that is also true.

‘Good’ and ‘right’ are not the same thing. Therefore, choosing what is good is not the same thing as choosing what feels right in one’s own eyes.

How might one know what is ‘good’ unless it might seem so in their own eyes?

It depends who wrote the book, why they wrote it, and how living out that guidance affects our own lives and that of others. There are any number of books concerning moral principles that all have their place. The distinction in religion or a religious text is they are considered divine guidance, and consequently a higher form of ‘good’ than human ‘good.’ The ultimate of living out divine guidance is developing the capacity to love in a divine sense, which is beyond our capacity to love at a human level.

OK

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think Jesus actually said anything about demons with cloven hooves and horns. He did speak of Gehenna, which was a literal place with a literal fire. Fire is frequently used as a symbol of eternal destruction in scripture. What I was referring to was not the actual words of Jesus but concepts of the physical state of Hell based on an interpretation of Jesus words. Some Christian concepts of Hell are based on Revelation, which John states is a vision given to him by Jesus. However, he also states the Revelation is presented in signs and symbols, so one has to be very cautious of a literal interpretation of Revelation. To illustrate further, Jesus used things like fields, pearls, dragnets, wheat to illustrate the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not literally these things.

It is possible. Another way of looking at it is ancient kingdoms had an understanding of divine truths, and these truths, while interpreted differently, have been believed from the dawn of time. Admittedly this requires a bit more imagination. However, interestingly the OT authors, who had a closer association with the Egyptians than first century Jews or Christians, don’t ‘borrow’ this concept from the Egyptians. The Messiah being born of a virgin is a NT concept, not an OT one.

Indeed this is the case, but were not many other Jewish conventions borrowed from the Egyptians? Why might the god of the Israelite people have chosen to copy such rites as circumcision from the Egyptians? Further, if the Egyptian people were merely alluding to divine rites of God’s own design, why were they not considered the chosen people given their clear head-start along this path?

Many of the parables Jesus told were parables that were already in existence, and he re-adapted them to teach the kingdom of God. An example of that is the parable of the wheat and the weeds. I think another is the Good Samaritan. He used everyday things and situations, such as fishing, cooking as people in that culture could readily relate to his teaching.

Agreed.

Depends what one is discarding - details that aren’t really important, or the principles, morals and values they are intended to teach.

In this instance it is the soul that God is discarding.

If they insisted in remaining in their own torment of their own making, and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise despite repeated attempts, what should the king do?

Heal the mental wounds that might cause them to act in such a manner. For the individuals who grew up with substance abuse, provide a means for rejecting the addiction; for those who might have been abused by others, provide healing for the hurt and anguish that might cause them to lash out; for those afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, cure their disease; for those with mental deficiencies that might cause them to choose poorly, enlighten their abilities; for those so steeped in evil that they willingly revel in it, have them live the lives of their victims until a sense of reason and proportion is returned; for the psychopaths, cure their condition…

Might any of the above be beyond the reach of an all powerful being? Why might such a being instead choose the simplest method of merely allowing the broken to languish uselessly?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Only if what is being proposed is untrue.

If the proposal is true, understanding cannot lead to disbelief. Misunderstanding of a truth can lead to disbelief.

Why might God then require trust without proof of trustworthiness? Was it not the sin of Adam and Eve to trust Satan in the guise of a serpent when he was not trustworthy?

If God is just, why might an injustice (such as being threatened with Hell) be perpetuated upon the skeptical?

 

[minkymurph]

How might one know what is ‘good’ unless it might seem so in their own eyes?

My theory is one knows what ‘good’ is when one sees it in action, not just in their own lives but in the lives of others. If what is ‘good’ in our eyes has a detrimental affect on others, it’s not a universal or ultimate ‘good.’

Indeed this is the case, but were not many other Jewish conventions borrowed from the Egyptians? Why might the god of the Israelite people have chosen to copy such rites as circumcision from the Egyptians? Further, if the Egyptian people were merely alluding to divine rites of God’s own design, why were they not considered the chosen people given their clear head-start along this path?

I don’t think it was borrowed from the Egyptians. Circumcision came into play way before that. Abraham was circumcised and it did have a religious meaning, a sign of covenant, and he wasn’t a Jew. I don’t think he had much to do with the Egyptians either.

Your post raises the question, as I understand it, why were the Israelites God’s chosen people? Personally I would say there are misconceptions of the concept of 'chosen people. 'God told Abraham all nations would bless themselves because of him, not just one. Abraham’s direct descendant’s, the Israelites, where first to experience God’s Revelation. However, that Revelation was not something they where supposed to keep to themselves.

In this instance it is the soul that God is discarding.

Can’t answer this one. Have to think about it and come back to you.

Heal the mental wounds that might cause them to act in such a manner. For the individuals who grew up with substance abuse, provide a means for rejecting the addiction; for those who might have been abused by others, provide healing for the hurt and anguish that might cause them to lash out; for those afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, cure their disease; for those with mental deficiencies that might cause them to choose poorly, enlighten their abilities; for those so steeped in evil that they willingly revel in it, have them live the lives of their victims until a sense of reason and proportion is returned; for the psychopaths, cure their condition…

Might any of the above be beyond the reach of an all powerful being? Why might such a being instead choose the simplest method of merely allowing the broken to languish uselessly?

I don’t believe God sends people to Hell for any of the reasons you mention above. I also believe God does heal a lot things you mention above, such as wounds caused by abuse, mental anguish.

As for those steeped in evil they revel in it, I don’t know why evil exists, and there is no answer that is totally satisfactory. I believe I will understand in the next life, but in this one I won’t. I suppose I’ve reached a point where I just accept there are things I can’t explain and don’t understand. I still grapple with them from time to time, but don’t feel so frustrated by it as I accept the limitations of what can be explained and what can’t.

Physical illness is something I can’t satisfactorily explain either. I just put it down to being human. Humans get sick and die. Funny thing is, nobody seems as concerned animals get cancer and lots of other horrible diseases. We accept animals get sick and die. Why should it upset us more when it is human?

Totally off the topic, but I’ve also wondered why animals don’t scream and yell in agony when giving birth. It’s all quite civilized with animals. Why is that?

 

[davidv]

Why might God then require trust without proof of trustworthiness?

In what way did God demonstrate that he was untrustworthy. He has fulfilled every promise he made.

Was it not the sin of Adam and Eve to trust Satan in the guise of a serpent when he was not trustworthy?

If God is just, why might an injustice (such as being threatened with Hell) be perpetuated upon the skeptical?

How can being honest about the consequences of an action be considered unjust?

 

[Uzziah1]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

This question REALLY troubled Catholics at Bible study, in our parish.

Here was the answer I culled-out of literature relevant to the question over the years…

We have trouble understanding the logic of Hell because we go through life partially impacted by grace. It keeps us from having the experience of total moral bankruptcy – of seeing how horrible we really are.

But, a Hell-bound person who “commits the sin against the Holy Spirit,” by spending achieving mortal-sin-level bankruptcy as their state when they die, are deprived of all grace at judgment. In effect, they are allowed to achieve their “main ambition.”

That deprivation makes them DESPISE God’s presence, to the core of their souls. The damned consequently PREFER separation from God in Hell, and the suffering of Hell, OVER being in God’s presence!

Consequently, the damned march to Hell, flags flying, and Hell needs no walls.

 

[jmvizanko]

This question REALLY troubled Catholics at Bible study, in our parish.

That’s because it is a troubling question, which in my opinion, has no good response. Mostly the responses are that unbelievers deserve hell, and that they are choosing it. Neither of which is the case in my opinion.

We have trouble understanding the logic of Hell because we go through life partially impacted by grace. It keeps us from having the experience of total moral bankruptcy – of seeing how horrible we really are.

But, a Hell-bound person who “commits the sin against the Holy Spirit,” by spending achieving mortal-sin-level bankruptcy as their state when they die, are deprived of all grace at judgment. In effect, they are allowed to achieve their “main ambition.”

Well I don’t know what you mean by “commits the sin against the Holy Spirit,” but I am assuming it means unbelief, and not attributing the works of Jesus to Satanic powers. But my question about grace and achieving mortal-sin-level bankruptcy, is that what really makes a good unbeliever and different than a good Christian? Both have sinned according to you. Its just that one (usually arbitrarily) is carrying the right get out of hell free card (faith), and one isn’t. A middle eastern person who was raised Muslim and surrounded by Muslims doesn’t hate your god, they simply contemplate his existence as much as you contemplate the existence of their god. They are arbitrarily on the wrong side of a fence. A fence that has no clearly given reason for everyone to find the right side of, because god chooses to remain invisible and make you find the right side by arbitrary chance and faith.

That deprivation makes them DESPISE God’s presence, to the core of their souls. The damned consequently PREFER separation from God in Hell, and the suffering of Hell, OVER being in God’s presence!

I have never met an atheist or non Christian that despises the god of Christianity. How can you despise something that you don’t think exists? Could you despise aliens? Could you despise a person on the other side of the earth that you have never met? In all honesty, if there is a super intelligent creator, I would love to meet them and be enlightened to such vast knowledge. Who could not want to meet a god? Although yes, I do find the concept of sending people to hell based on faith deplorable, and I would find a god that did so also deplorable, just as I would hate a dictator that commits acts of torturous genocide without reason.

Consequently, the damned march to Hell, flags flying, and Hell needs no walls.

And in the end, this is the only way that hell could not be seen as troubling, if everyone going there is going there gladly and knowledgeably. Of course, nobody is doing these things, per the points above, so it is only ignorance of what unbelievers are actually like that can provide the comfort of this argument.

 

[minkymurph]

In this instance it is the soul that God is discarding.

To come back on this -

It could be argued if one does not believe the immortal soul exists, or believes one can act in any way one wants without consequence irrespective of the fact they believe the immortal soul exists, one has discarded one’s own soul, in that they have no desire for anything good to happen to it.

The first issue then, is the existence of an immortal soul. If one does not believe the immortal soul exists, the question is irrelevant. If one believes it does, it cannot be considered just that one who has no desire to live one’s life in union with God receives the same and equal reward as one who does. If that were the case, there would be no point in living one’s life in union with God.

You’re posts suggest you acknowledge repentance is a necessary element in avoiding Hell if it exists. It cannot be considered just to reward someone who is unrepentant of harm they have caused to themselves and others in their live in the same way as those who have attempted to avoid this, or make reparation when they have. In which case, God could not be considered just in bringing such a soul in an unrepentant state to heaven.

It could be argued that a person only fully comprehends the consequences of their chosen path in life in Hell. However repentance at this stage will be to no avail as God has made his decision, which seems unjust. Our belief is they will not, which may seem unthinkable. Is it really? Is it not true to say many are given ample opportunity to reflect on the course of their life while alive? God is not under compulsion to forgive those who have no desire to be forgiven. Why would a person who rejects God’s forgiveness in this life choose it in the next?

Further to the above, salvation is not just a matter of timing. Judgement is not something that happens merely at the point of death based on a balance of all the good things we did in life compared with the bad. Catholics believe sin has an effect on the soul. They also believe in baptismal regeneration, and restoration of that state through the sacraments. Sin corrupts the immortal soul; Catholics use the term ‘wounds’ the soul. The soul can only be healed by the action of God. Therefore, throughout our lives we are in effect formulating the judgement we will receive for ourselves. In the case of those who have no desire to repent or accept God’s forgiveness, the soul becomes so corrupted repentance and a desire to share the eternal life of God is no longer possible. That happens throughout our lives and not just at the point of death. That is why Catholics believe it is possible for a person to be restored to God at the point of death. There is time for their soul to be restored so it may enter heaven. Once the soul is separated from the body. If the soul has not been restored prior to death, it remains in that condition for eternity, which is why those in Hell will not repent. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the film, or read the book ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray?’ This is a good portrayal of this belief. Paul also illustrates this with the image of a potter and clay. The potter can shape and mold clay which is malleable, but once it becomes a hard lump the potter can do nothing with it. In which case, it is discarded because it will never become a pot due to the fact it has reached the point of no return.

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brothers and sisters

God can be found everywhere. He is Being Itself and all other beings are only beings in so much as they participate in Him and live from Him. Such a God could not possibly send his beloved souls to a created, fiery place called hell - there is no place without God, which would mean that if hell were a place (which it isn’t) he would also be there in all his Love and Goodness, since his absence would mean non-existence.

“…Nothing burns in Hell but the self-will…”

*- Theologia Germanica (1309–1378), annonymous Catholic mystic *

I love what Mechthild of Madgeburg said about Heaven:

“…Feel the Holy Spirit moving and compelling thee, within the Flowing Fire and Light of God. When God could no longer contain himself he created the soul and in His immense love gave himself to her. The soul is boundless in her longing; on fire in her loving. Lord Heavenly Father, between you and me there goes unceasingly an imperceptible breath. We are now present in Heaven. Just as we are now on earth adorned and permeated with holy love of God. O Love! How far your light shines in the soul and how fiery is your glow…We are now present in heaven, purgatory and hell. Thus does our presence go in and out of heaven, purgatory and wretched hell according to where our free will seeks to align itself…”

- Saint Mechthild of Magdeburg (c. 1207 – 1294), Catholic mystic

Here is a beautiful video with music and words of Saint Mechthild (who is in the Roman Matyrology as a Saint even though she’s not officially, as yet, been canonized):

youtube.com/watch?v=ntZpXE7Dij0&feature=player_embedded#!

“…Heaven is not a place and cannot be found on a map; rather it is where God’s will is done…”

*- Pope Benedict XVI *

“…Our Father who art in Heaven [said Jesus] but what is this – Heaven? And where is Heaven? “… who art in Heaven” – that means: within the saints and within the just. Yes, the heavens are the highest bodies in the universe, but they are still bodies, which cannot exist except in a given location. Yet if we believe that God is located in the heavens, meaning in the highest parts of the world, then the birds would be more fortunate than we, since they would live closer to God. Yet it is not written: ‘The Lord is close to those who dwell on the heights or on the mountains’, but rather: ‘the Lord is close to the brokenhearted’, an expression which refers to humility…The just man can be called ‘Heaven’…"

*- Saint Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD), Church Father *

 

[Faber]

See DavidFilmer’s reply on page one. QED.

 

[jmvizanko]

See DavidFilmer’s reply on page one. QED.

And if you had read anywhere past that, you might have discovered the reasons why hell is a punishment, it is not a choice, and god doesn’t respect anyone who happens to not have the right faith through no fault of their own…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No

The content is salvation from hell. Jews were given the 1st chance at salvation. Then it was opened up to everyone else (all us Gentiles). As time goes on, more and more are drawn to the truth. It’s good God is patient.

Might it not equally have been good that the gentiles might have been patient? Were they not shut out of salvation until the Jews failed to understand the scope of the new offer?

No matter what the fruit actually was, obedience to God was the issue. Blessings and curses were mentioned up front with Adam and Eve.

If we are in agreement on this point, what then might have been the difficulty with the analogy offered (previously) in a similar vein?

Satan put the notion into Adam’s ear that surely God won’t go through with what He warned. Aren’t you voicing the same objection? Surely God won’t go through with what He warned. If He does surely He’s not a loving God?

The difference between us and all creation, (leaving out angels for this example) we are the only part of creation who can defy the one who made us. We can say no to God. Nothing else in all creation can do that.

If a loving God makes a non-loving threat as a response to disobedience (as opposed to a loving threat) might not that serve to bring into doubt his loving nature?

I didn’t make the rule or the consequence for violating the rule. I’m only required to obey the rule.

Was not the same excuse used by those guarding the gates at war prison internment camps?

If one is not free to question one’s leadership, what true freedom might exist?

Tyrants don’t put up with all the abuse God did at the hands of His own creatures. Tyrants just don’t do that. .

If God’s response to disobedience might be eternal torment, is God truly “put[ting] up with all the abuse” in the end?

Might a loving mother throw a wayward child into a stove as a final measure?

By the same token, He gives everyone a chance to repent. If they don’t, He eternalizes the direction they are already going in.

If one’s direction were a peaceful existence apart from God might such a direction be maintained?

Alternately, if one’s life on Earth is one of misery, is that tangent equally preserved?

In your world, is there any room for punishment for wrong doing? The more serious the wrong the more serious the punishment?

As I said in an earlier post, one who only takes God on their terms rather than His, have created an idol.

If the purpose of punishment is to correct, certainly; if it is to torture, certainly not.

No matter how good the explanation, you know, there are going to be those who obey and those who don’t…true?.

Let us agree that there are always those who might disobey. Let us disagree that the remedial course is to have them tortured.

Rather than employees think children. Do some children get disinherited?

By loving parents?

Screwey as it seems, people know that drinking and driving is illegal yet they do it anyway inspite of knowing the law and knowing the possible insane consequences and horrible torment they can cause while behind the wheel impared by alcohol.

since torment doesn’t curb DUI,

Is it not necessarily the case that one choosing to drive while intoxicated is, well, intoxicated at the time? Is his/her judgement at peak efficiency during such a moment?

Further, is one in such an intoxicated state capable of envisioning potential harm of his/her actions as being a torment?

and fear of the torment of hell doesn’t change behavior either, then maybe you’re looking at this all wrong. Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if it was no different than what we have here in this existence. So therefore, hell is for those who refuse to change, who prefer disobedience to obedience, and disorderd appetites. And God eternalizes their preference. Likewise, heaven is for souls who love doing the will of God. Both people are contrary to each other. Therefore, they are seperated for all eternity.

Is it then your position that Hell must exist in order that Heaven be a nicer place? Let us allow that Heaven might be a realm for those willing to do God’s will and Hell a place for those opposed to God’s will. Where might one find those who would generally do the will of God? Where might one find those who might neither do the will of God nor oppose it?

If the medicine is there but one won’t take it, or do what is required, who’s fault is that? Remember, force is against free will and God doesn’t violate our free will

Is it to be believed that in order not to violate an individual’s free will, God would violate an individual’s spiritual peace?

Further, if God were so unwilling to violate a soul’s free will that he would allow it to languish in an eternity of torment, would such not necessarily suggest that a soul is free to depart Hell at any time? Or is it to be understood that God might ultimately be satisfied with overruling a soul’s free-will in the end? If so, could it not be said that God would overrule a soul’s free will in order so that he might not overrule a soul’s free will?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Again, that comes down to one’s image of God. The Christian image of God is derived from the Incarnation.

Of course it’s possible. Two contrasting answers to the same question may both be possible. However, what is possible is not the same as what is true. Therefore, the question is which is true as opposed which is more feasible on the balance of probabilities.

Quite a sweeping statement. Does he personally know all practitioners from the birth of the Church until contemporary times that have not embraced the Charismatice tradition, and is it possible for him to know that in terms of their faith they never progressed beyond infancy?

I would guess the Charismatic tradition is something that works for him, and no doubt many others, which is fine for them. However, it cannot be assumed no one will progress beyond infancy iin terms of faith until they are able to fully embrace this tradition.

Quite so.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The deity you speak of has already made us with a disposition to want to know Him. iow, He’s stacked the deck in His favor for our benefit. One’s denial of Him is an act of the human will that contradicts how He made us.

That’s not how it works.

How might you be certain? Is it not customary for followers to perform actions according to the designs of the ruler? If the ruler should desire such a torment to take place, would it not be logical that he pass the particulars on to subordinates?

Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

In fearing a God capable of such destruction is there much room for a loving relationship?

Where is the source of these ideas you have about God and people of faith?

If one is not willing to partake in the acts carried out by one’s master, how might one consider the actions justifiable?

As I said in an earlier post, God gave us a rational soul. We then are predisposed to reason from evidence. One who looks for every reason under the sun not to believe, is really not innocent of their ignorance but responsible for it.

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

***1791 ***This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

If one examines the evidence and determines a monster brooding within is such a one to blame for the evidence? How might such a one ignore the difficulties raised?