Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

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.’

Is being comfortable with the idea that unbelievers will burn in a lake of fire (as has been recently calmly described by a Christian author) to be considered a sign that ultimate good might be brewing nearby?

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.

Circumcision predated Abraham…as an Egyptian tradition.

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.

Yet were they not commanded to keep apart from others? How then might it have been possible that God intended for them to spread his message? Further, did God not specifically call them his chosen people?

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

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.

Would this not then suggest that Hell is a peculiarly lonely place devoid of inhabitants?

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.

Power brings a sense of protection. Evil brings a sense of power. Is it surprising that the very weak and most vulnerable might sometimes become the most evil?

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?

Perhaps God loves them more?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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

Has God made the descendants of Abraham as numerous as the sands of the Earth?

Did Jesus return before any of his apostles tasted death?

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

If one is the originator of the consequence and not merely a neutral observer.

If one disbelieves that God is good or that he exists, the reward is not merely death but an eternity of torment. What Earthly leaders might reward skeptics in an equal manner?

Would not questioning Saddam Hussein have brought about torture? Mao, or Stalin the same?

What about questioning the prime minister of England? Is it to be understood that the prime minister might be more civilized than God?

 

[minkymurph]

Is being comfortable with the idea that unbelievers will burn in a lake of fire (as has been recently calmly described by a Christian author) to be considered a sign that ultimate good might be brewing nearby?

That depends on your perception of Hell. Some believe it is a literal fire, some do not. Personally, I would not be of the opinion it is a literal fire, for reasons I have already stated. But admittedly, I don’t know what it is physically like, no one does.

Circumcision predated Abraham…as an Egyptian tradition.

I couldn’t argue. My knowledge of ancient Near East history is not that extensive. The point I was making is the Israelites were more likely to be influenced by Egyptians than Abraham because they were inhabitants of Egypt, according to the bible slaves, in Egypt for so long. According to the bible, Abraham was a nomad.

Yet were they not commanded to keep apart from others? How then might it have been possible that God intended for them to spread his message? Further, did God not specifically call them his chosen people?

In terms of worship, yes. ‘Physical’ separation, that is another matter. God’s promise to Abraham was people of all nations would bless themselves because of him, not one. His seed were to be like the grains of sand on the shore - a similar analogy to the vision in Revelation of a ‘great crowd’ no man could number out of all people, tribes and tongues. The Israelites were the first nation of people to receive the divine law. It was not God’s intention they were to be the only one’s. There are many references to the ‘new Israel’ and the ‘Israel above’ in the NT. ‘Israel’ takes on a different meaning in the NT. Gentiles were not invited into the ‘new covenant’ simply because there were Jews who did not believe in Jesus. In addition, ‘Jew’ refers to members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The 10 tribe kingdom of Israel did not cease to be God’s people following the split in the kingdom.

In addition, Job was not a Jew or an Israelite. God may well have revealed himself to individuals outside the nation of Israel. We just don’t know about it as the OT deals mainly with Israel.

Would this not then suggest that Hell is a peculiarly lonely place devoid of inhabitants?

Personally I would like to think so. There are people I think are ‘bad’ enough to go to Hell, but I like to think there are not too many of them.

Power brings a sense of protection. Evil brings a sense of power. Is it surprising that the very weak and most vulnerable might sometimes become the most evil?

No, it’s not. I’ve met some very mean people who are also very weak people, and are mean spirited because of how they feel about themselves. They can choose to go through life like that, or they can choose to address their inferiority complex.

However, there are also those who, as you say, want power because they are vulnerable, and desire to protect themselves from harm by acquiring power. Knowing the soul of another is a complicated business.

Perhaps God loves them more?

Touche!

(Sorry, can’t find a grave accent)

 

[steve_b]

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?

Prior to Jesus resurrection and ascension back to heaven, no one, Jews included, could go to heaven.
J:

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?

When the creature doesn’t return love to God, they are at some point in their future, seperated for all eternity from God. That’s not a non loving threat. That’s the choice of the creature
J:

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

No.
J:

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

As God said to Job when Job challanged God’s leadership (so to speak )
start reading here in ch 38, and keep reading. God gave Job quite an answer, don’t you think? jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/20job.html#38
J:

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?

Think of hell another way. This is from the Catechism.

**1057 **Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

This seperation matters because for all eternity we maintain our memory, intellect, and will…forever. One might want to just go to sleep, no dreams, no sense of consciousness, never to wake up again. That’s not how it is.
J:

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?

Remember what I said earlier about creating one’s own god? That by definition is an idol.
J:

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

For however long we live, Our lessons are to be learned in this life. There’s no 2nd chance.
J:

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

Think of the example above from the Catechism.
J:

By loving parents?

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?

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 one dies in friendship with God, i.e. in a state of grace, (no mortal sins at death), then even if purgatory is in their future, heaven is guranteed.

One who doesn’t do the will of God almost by definition, has probably opposed the will of God.
J:

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

As Augustine said (paraphrased) The God who created you without your permission, won’t save you without your permission.
J:

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?

As I said earlier, making God to one’s own specifications, is an idol.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Didn’t Jesus do that?

Mt 25: start reading in vs 31 jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/101matth.html#25

Lk 16: start reading in vs 19 jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/103luke.html#16

Jesus gave both those accounts.
J:

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

You have nothing to fear if you love God and do what He says … right?
J:

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

Didn’t Satan say to God “I will not serve”
J:

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?

I’m convinced that if you do your homework, examine the evidence, you will solve all your problems.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

If one does not believe one has an immortal soul, would one not be delighted to discover their error should they remain extant after death? How would this logically follow that one might approve of having this new discovery discarded merely because it was not previously expected?

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.

Is this certain? Consider, would not a closer relationship with God result?

Alternately is it often the desire of one doing hard work that those who do not do hard work suffer as a result?

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.

Would not simply containing such souls in a location until such repentance might be achieved be sufficient? How long might it require for a soul placed in a locale in which it must relive the pain it caused to realize it is sorrowful for its actions? If never sorrowful, how difficult might it be for God to repair this damage to its feedback centers so as to allow it to feel this emotion the next time?

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?

Ignorance is replaced with enlightenment?

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.

One finds it difficult to imagine how such constraints might be placed on an all powerful God.

 

[Contarini]

If one disbelieves that God is good or that he exists, the reward is not merely death but an eternity of torment.

I keep checking into this thread to see if it’s actually turned into a substantive discussion. It would be nice to have such a discussion with you, but as long as you engage in straw-man arguments like this one it’s really impossible.

I do not believe in the caricature you have presented above. Most thoughtful, educated Christians of my acquaintance do not believe in it.

You can choose to talk to us and take us seriously, or you can go on railing at the silly and vicious things some Christians believe if it makes you feel better. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that you are actually engaging with what Christianity has to say for itself.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

http://jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/20job.html#38

Yes, and God said in Job 42 that Job had spoken rightly about Him.

So obviously God was not condemning Job for “questioning his leadership.” Quite the contrary. Unless you want to go with the interpretation that God only commended Job for the expression of repentance Job utters at the beginning of chap. 42. That makes no sense to me (and that’s before you deal with the fact that the Hebrew is confusing and that many Jewish interpreters think it means something like “I renounce dust and ashes”), but I know some folks interpret it that way.

Edwin

 

[minkymurph]

If one does not believe one has an immortal soul, would one not be delighted to discover their error should they remain extant after death? How would this logically follow that one might approve of having this new discovery discarded merely because it was not previously expected?

Depends whether one wants immortality or whether one doesn’t.

Is this certain? Consider, would not a closer relationship with God result?

Certainty is something the Catholic faith does not propose to offer by comparison to some other religious denominations.

Certainly, Jesus did teach the one is who is forgiven more will love his ‘master’ more. However, note the terms forgiveness and love. Those in Hell not only want neither, but know it is possible. There is a difference between doubt, lack of faith and outright rejection. Outright rejection is not disbelief as a consequence of finding a particular line of argument unconvincing. Outright rejection is knowing truth but rejecting in favour of what is false. Scripture tells us Satan knows there is a God, and knew Jesus was the Son of God, yet rejected him. Those in Hell are no longer capbale of loving God. So, they will not develop a relationship with God of any sort. this concept is not so strange as in this life, we see people who recoil from those who choose good because they prefer what is not. They don’t like to around people who choose good and have a high sense of morality because they have no desire to be the same. Consequently, they resent those who are not like them, and in fact may actually hate them.

Alternately is it often the desire of one doing hard work that those who do not do hard work suffer as a result?

Yes, that’s retributive justice and related to one’s image of God. It is the case there is temptation to indulge the thought ‘God will punish people who don’t agree with me that I don’t approve of.’ God may not. Jesus illustrated this with the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Workers who come in at the ‘last hour’ are given the same ‘wages’ as those who have been ‘working’ for longer, which makes them angry and they feel they have been cheated. However, they have not because they have been given what was agreed, if the owner of the vineyard wants to ‘pay’ the same ‘wage’ to someone who hasn’t ‘worked’ as long, that’s the owner’s prerogative. The parable ends by stating, ‘God gives to whom he wants.’ (Or something similar)

 

[minkymurph]

Would not simply containing such souls in a location until such repentance might be achieved be sufficient? How long might it require for a soul placed in a locale in which it must relive the pain it caused to realize it is sorrowful for its actions? If never sorrowful, how difficult might it be for God to repair this damage to its feedback centers so as to allow it to feel this emotion the next time?

If repentance is not acheived in this life, why would it be in another one? My argument was the pains of Hell and joys of heaven are, to an extent, experienced in this life.

What do you think that place should be like? What would inspire the person to repent?

Catholics believe God repairs this damage through baptism and the sacrament of reconciliation. Therefore, through the sacraments this can be acheived in this life.

Ignorance is replaced with enlightenment?

If people were sent to Hell because of ignorance, heaven would be a very empty place. A person who is ignorant through no fault of their own is not culpable for their ignorance to the same extent as someone who bears a degree of responsibility for their own ignorance.
For example, suspecting something might contain an element of truth but choosing to ignore it.

One finds it difficult to imagine how such constraints might be placed on an all powerful God.

It’s an illustration. However, it’s a fair comment. God does not restore us if we don’t want to be restored. The question of free will and God’s non-interference with that free will is a very difficult on and to date, any explanation leaves something to be desired. I believe one would know the answer if one could exercise the same degree of power. We don’t really know what sort of world we would create if we had unlimited power. Therefore, I can’t tell you what the world would be like, or what we as individuals would be like, if God used his power in the way we humans sometimes think he should. What I do know of power is the more power one has the more self-constraint one needs.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, and God said in Job 42 that Job had spoken rightly about Him.

So obviously God was not condemning Job for “questioning his leadership.” Quite the contrary. Unless you want to go with the interpretation that God only commended Job for the expression of repentance Job utters at the beginning of chap. 42. That makes no sense to me (and that’s before you deal with the fact that the Hebrew is confusing and that many Jewish interpreters think it means something like “I renounce dust and ashes”), but I know some folks interpret it that way.

Edwin

The point was, God was reminding Job ( in a rather magnificent way), that God is and remains always, in control. He’s never alseep at the controls.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

That depends on your perception of Hell. Some believe it is a literal fire, some do not. Personally, I would not be of the opinion it is a literal fire, for reasons I have already stated. But admittedly, I don’t know what it is physically like, no one does.

OK

I couldn’t argue. My knowledge of ancient Near East history is not that extensive. The point I was making is the Israelites were more likely to be influenced by Egyptians than Abraham because they were inhabitants of Egypt, according to the bible slaves, in Egypt for so long. According to the bible, Abraham was a nomad.

The original point being that if Abraham and his descendents were meant to be wards of some form of divine knowledge and had a covenant with God, why did their knowledge and rites seemingly come to them through practices already long in use by the Egyptians? Is it to be considered that God initially made the same offer to Egypt? Or was God merely lacking originality?

In terms of worship, yes. ‘Physical’ separation, that is another matter.

Also in terms of habitation, association, marriage, food preparation and consumption.

God’s promise to Abraham was people of all nations would bless themselves because of him, not one. His seed were to be like the grains of sand on the shore - a similar analogy to the vision in Revelation of a ‘great crowd’ no man could number out of all people, tribes and tongues. The Israelites were the first nation of people to receive the divine law. It was not God’s intention they were to be the only one’s. There are many references to the ‘new Israel’ and the ‘Israel above’ in the NT. ‘Israel’ takes on a different meaning in the NT. Gentiles were not invited into the ‘new covenant’ simply because there were Jews who did not believe in Jesus. In addition, ‘Jew’ refers to members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The 10 tribe kingdom of Israel did not cease to be God’s people following the split in the kingdom.

In addition, Job was not a Jew or an Israelite. God may well have revealed himself to individuals outside the nation of Israel. We just don’t know about it as the OT deals mainly with Israel.

God may have sporadically revealed himself to random individuals throughout time, certainly. Equally possible is that the Israelite people adopted the book of Job as their own from some other source.

Personally I would like to think so. There are people I think are ‘bad’ enough to go to Hell, but I like to think there are not too many of them.

It would seem difficult to imagine anyone evil enough to warrant torture for any degree of time. This is provable by considering if one would be able to torture anyone (or observe the event) if commanded to do so.

If Hell is not a locale of torture then must not descriptions of its vileness be largely hyperbole? If so, would this not suggest that Jesus was subject to exaggeration?

No, it’s not. I’ve met some very mean people who are also very weak people, and are mean spirited because of how they feel about themselves. They can choose to go through life like that, or they can choose to address their inferiority complex.

Is that not an affirmation rather than a refutation?

However, there are also those who, as you say, want power because they are vulnerable, and desire to protect themselves from harm by acquiring power. Knowing the soul of another is a complicated business.

Quite so.

Touche!

(Sorry, can’t find a grave accent)

 

[paul_c]

The original point being that if Abraham and his descendents were meant to be wards of some form of divine knowledge and had a covenant with God, why did their knowledge and rites seemingly come to them through practices already long in use by the Egyptians? Is it to be considered that God initially made the same offer to Egypt? Or was God merely lacking originality?

The knowledge of God did not come from the practice of circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the covenential agreement between Abraham and his descendents and God. This occurred after God made himself known to Abraham. Abraham is considered the Father of monotheism. His understanding was far different than the paganism of the ancient Egyptians.

God may have sporadically revealed himself to random individuals throughout time, certainly. Equally possible is that the Israelite people adopted the book of Job as their own from some other source.

Why would it be equally possible that the Hebrews adopted the book of Job from others? This seems highly improbable since the Book of Job has been part of the Hebrew canon for well over 2000 years and there is no evidence at all that it came from somewhere else. This is merely speculation on your part, with no supporting data.

It would seem difficult to imagine anyone evil enough to warrant torture for any degree of time. This is provable by considering if one would be able to torture anyone (or observe the event) if commanded to do so.

Consider for a moment, that there are two basic possibilities : comfort and discomfort. In heaven, there is comfort from being with God. In Hell, this comfort is lacking and hence can be called discomfort. Life is full of discomfort from the very rich to the very poor. This discomfort comes in different varieties, but its there none the less. No one can deny it. This is part of the challenge of life – to love others in the face of discomfort. During our life, if we choose to love God and others, then we are doing the will of God and will be happy doing that in the next life. On the other hand, if we are not aligned with God’s will in life, we will not be happy doing it later. And by forsaking God, we forsake the comfort of being with him and doing what we were made to do. This is hell, eternal discomfort, because we have separated ourselves from the God that made us and that knowledge will be as burning as any fire.

If Hell is not a locale of torture then must not descriptions of its vileness be largely hyperbole? If so, would this not suggest that Jesus was subject to exaggeration?

Well, there is no comfort in Hell because that comes from God and those in Hell have separated themselves from that comfort. I suspect that the torture that exists in Hell is propagated by the denizens of Hell itself. Envision a place populated by the most evil men in history with no police force. And isnt that exactly what people in Hell have wished for all their lives: to be in a place where they could do anything they want with no police force to stop them? Be careful what you ask for…

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I’ve just read through the thread. What I found most intriguing about the original argument was the idea that God wasn’t providing the original poster with any reason to believe in His existence. My thought is that, on a forum like this, there are plenty of people who see countless reasons to believe in His existence. The original poster would, of course, deny that there was anything wilfull in his rejection of these perceived reasons.

Although believing Christians might warn him that God might expect a little more effort on his part, it makes me think about how much God is giving me that I’m deciding I’m not quite ready to accept. In a sense, I’m in the same position as the implicit atheist, only much farther along the continuum toward belief.

I have observed enough of God’s effect on my own life to accept his existence as empirically proven. Unfortunately, the proof is so internal and individual that it probably isn’t much good to anyone else. But the argument here is an excellent reminder to believers that we all draw lines beyond which we are unwilling to meet God. Worse yet, we’re supposed to believe in Him!

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

What I said in another thread just now…

ConstantineTG:

Don’t see hell as a place of destination chosen by God. The folly in that view is that God can choose where we go and that on His own whim he can make one person go here and another go there. That makes God subjective, which he isn’t.

A good idea of hell came from one of the teachers of the East. He says that hell isn’t a place devoid of God, but rather like heaven, a person is subjected to the fullness of God’s love. The problem is because a person lived his life rejecting God and the way of life He wants us to live, that person cannot accept that love. Thus instead of being a source of warmth and eternal bliss, it becomes painful for the person.

 

[Ecoclimber]

Hell was never intended for mankind but was created for the angels who rebelled against God. Since they were in heaven and saw the majesty of God, their punishment was more severe. One of the characteristics of God is Justice. Just as we see mankind craving for justice here on earth when someone murders another…would it be morally just to let him go…Divine Justice is in the essence or nature of God. God is also Holy. The Holiness of God is such that no stain of sin can exist in His Presence.

Thomas Aquinas spells it out very succinctly on the nature of God and the reasons for Divine punishment which would answers ones concerns on this topic in Summa Theologica. It explains it here:
**
calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/aquinas-and-trent-part-5/**

Blessings to all,

 

[minkymurph]

The original point being that if Abraham and his descendents were meant to be wards of some form of divine knowledge and had a covenant with God, why did their knowledge and rites seemingly come to them through practices already long in use by the Egyptians? Is it to be considered that God initially made the same offer to Egypt? Or was God merely lacking originality? .

As I have already stated, :yawn: the Israelites did ‘borrow’ from other cultures. It should not be assumed all practices, social etiquette so on and so forth the Israelites adhered to divinely imparted to them by God. On occasion, the ‘speaker’ in the OT is explaining how a principle or concept is to be lived out, rather than it was a ‘command’ from God. As another poster has quite rightly said, what made the Israelites unique was monotheism, and Abraham was the ‘Father’ of monotheistic belief.

Abraham did not recieve the Law, Moses did, and Abraham did not recieve any instructions from anyone else in relation to worship, the formation of a priesthood, hygene laws etc outlined in the Pentacheuch. These things came after the Israelites became a nation. In addition, God never said there was anything wrong with many of these practices or that they were to stop doing them. One could argue God was lacking originality, or one could argue that from the dawn of time the human race had a concept of the divine that was unveiled over time. ‘Revelation’ actually means ‘unveiling.’ It doesn’t mean the human race knew nothing of God or Divine Law prior to Moses. They did know something, because the human race shares the imaging of God. Therefore, as I believe the Psalmist says, Divine Law is something that is written into our hearts, or in today’s lingo perhaps our genetic code.

Also in terms of habitation, association, marriage, food preparation and consumption…

Explained above, that was how life was lived then.

God may have sporadically revealed himself to random individuals throughout time, certainly. Equally possible is that the Israelite people adopted the book of Job as their own from some other source.

As far as I understand it, it’s not equally possible the Israelite people adopted the book of Job as their own from another source - they in fact did adopt it as their own from another source. Job was not an Israelite, he is described as an ‘oritental.’ Job is included in the Canon not because it was written by and Israelite, it is included in the Canon because it was believed to be inspired and because Job had a knowledge of the one true God as he was a monotheist. There’s nothing in Job about Law, the priesthood, worship, social or hygene rules etc. Except at the end where I believe he made a sacrifice?

It would seem difficult to imagine anyone evil enough to warrant torture for any degree of time. This is provable by considering if one would be able to torture anyone (or observe the event) if commanded to do so
Jelrak TB;9251580:

There are certainly people who could torture another is commanded to do so - consider Neruemburg. In terms of Hell, it depends on your perception of ‘torutre.’ Have you heard the saying ‘you’ve made your bed now lie in it?’ Can that be described as ‘torture?’
Jelrak TB;9251580:

If Hell is not a locale of torture then must not descriptions of its vileness be largely hyperbole? If so, would this not suggest that Jesus was subject to exaggeration?

The fact that hyperbole and exaggeration is readily accepted any literary work but the bible is one I derive a degree of amusment from. Has anyone ever said to you, 'I’m going to kill you? I’ll murder you? Do you take their words literally, or deem them a liar if they don’t carry it out? I believe we’ve been over this ground before.

Is that not an affirmation rather than a refutation.

I don’t follow you here. An affirmation or a refutation of what?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Prior to Jesus resurrection and ascension back to heaven, no one, Jews included, could go to heaven.

OK, the statement may then be amended to read: Might it not equally have been good that the gentiles & Jews might have been patient? Were they not shut out of salvation until the Jews failed to understand the scope of the new offer?

When the creature doesn’t return love to God, they are at some point in their future, seperated for all eternity from God. That’s not a non loving threat. That’s the choice of the creature

Consider the statement:

When [a child] does not return love to [the parent], they are at some point in their future, separated for all eternity from [the parent].

Is it not “non loving” (or at the very least apathetic) for the parent in the above case to be satisfied with such a state of affairs? Particularly in view of the fact that the parent appears absent from the life of the child?

No.

Actually, yes, it was.

As God said to Job when Job challanged God’s leadership (so to speak )
start reading here in ch 38, and keep reading. God gave Job quite an answer, don’t you think? jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/20job.html#38

Does this not essentially simplify to “might makes right”?

Is “who art thou to question me?” the proper response from a being of infinite patience and understanding who might truly wish to have a loving relationship with mankind?

Think of hell another way. This is from the Catechism.

**1057 **Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

This seperation matters because for all eternity we maintain our memory, intellect, and will…forever. One might want to just go to sleep, no dreams, no sense of consciousness, never to wake up again. That’s not how it is.

Certainly that could be how it would be should God so choose. Alternately, could it not be any other way, should God so choose?

Remember what I said earlier about creating one’s own god? That by definition is an idol.

How might it be idolatry to live a peaceful existence?

For however long we live, Our lessons are to be learned in this life. There’s no 2nd chance.

Is it then acceptable to torture those who may have expended their solitary chance?

Think of the example above from the Catechism.

It has been thought about. Is it to be understood that this is truly the best a perfect being of goodness could conceive?

If one dies in friendship with God, i.e. in a state of grace, (no mortal sins at death), then even if purgatory is in their future, heaven is guranteed.

One who doesn’t do the will of God almost by definition, has probably opposed the will of God.

And for those who have not “probably” done so, what is their fate?

As Augustine said (paraphrased) The God who created you without your permission, won’t save you without your permission.

As I said earlier, making God to one’s own specifications, is an idol.

Is that an affirmation or refutation of the question:

“Is it to be understood that in order to avoid impinging on an individual’s free will [in forcing a relationship], God will impinge on an individual’s free will [by constraining them to Hell?]”

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Didn’t Jesus do that?

Mt 25: start reading in vs 31 jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/101matth.html#25

Lk 16: start reading in vs 19 jmom.honlam.org/rsvce/103luke.html#16

Jesus gave both those accounts.

You have nothing to fear if you love God and do what He says … right?

Didn’t Satan say to God “I will not serve”

I’m convinced that if you do your homework, examine the evidence, you will solve all your problems.

If one’s master does not appear good, is one obligated to follow his dictates? Does morality not demand rebellion?

There seems little contentment to be found if one willingly follows a master who appears cruel.

 

[onenow1]

The eternal King of JUSTICE,AND MERCY, gave us the Ten Commandmentsthe way of love set down for us;that is all it takes to stay out of hell. He gave His Catholic Church this: Matt. 16:18 - 20.

His mercy trumps justice if we ask for it, but we must ask and have true repentence of any known faillings on our part. Purgatory will take care of minor transgressions that make us less then perfect;And remember this statement of Jesus, forgive Not 7 times but 77 x7 Matt: 18: 21-23

Peace
onenow1

"O’ Blood and water that gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus as a Fount of Mercy for us, I trust in You ! "