Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

People tend to hear what they want regardless of what the actual message is.

Perhaps…but seemingly this poster has been alerted to many unwelcome messages that ultimately required belief and acceptance.

What is wished for at this time is to discover a loving god willing to sacrifice all for the salvation of the one; that it has not yet been discovered is not a welcome situation at this time.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Jelrak,
I think the basic problem you are having is one of point of view. You are clearly grounded in the secular, so your values are secular. What you see as important is not what God sees as important.

You simply don’t understand God. You only understand your characterization of God. You somehow have come to believe that you are superior to the all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. How foolish you are…God is completely consistent and just - he is the author of the eternal truths that we are all beholden to. Faith is not obedience without question. God gave us the gift of reason and free will to be used. What God does is lead us to the truth that sets us free. We all have consciences, after all. God is not curious, He is omniscient and omnipresent. Our life tests are for US to find out what we value, not for God, He already knows.

Quote:
What God values is love, which is defined as doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return.

God is indeed love. He gives everyone, everything they have including life itself and no one can give him anything in return. And this includes the Middianites and the Canaanites. And yes, God will give everyone who chooses love, ever lasting love in heaven. And this is freely given.

Quote:
Doing God’s will means doing things for others. Those that go to heaven will be those that are selfless and humble and when they get there, they will encounter a world where everyone is looking out for everyone else’s well being.

Is that your problem? You don’t trust God to do what he says? Frankly, what do you have to lose by trusting God, who loved you enough to create you?

Quote:
Contrast this to the secular view, where what everyone values is their own comfort and power. When these people die, the will also find themselves condemned to a world of like minded people. They will create their own suffering, as each person tries to take advantage of the other, just as they did on earth. They will not have the advantage of having selfless people to take care of them, so they will ultimately descend into anarchy and despair. This suffering is of their own doing, not God’s.

Your personal experience is limited. Catholic Charities give to all without question of their faith. That is why there is such a problem with the HHS mandate. If they only serviced Catholics, they would meet the administration requirements. As it is, they service non-Catholics as well, without prejudice.

Quote:
As for suffering itself, this is seen differently by the God fearing and the secularist. Those that understand God’s plan, recognize that life is the great test to see which world you ultimately want. Your heaven or hell begins on earth. You see, human suffering is a path to love. Those that suffer open themselves up to love and provide an opportunity for others to love them. Someone who never suffers, never experiences love (again, someone doing something for them without return) because they are in need of nothing. In life, though, everyone suffers and everyone has access to those who are suffering and need their love. Secularists can’t see this though because they aren’t tuned into love. All they see is the discomfort.

I applaud you for coming to this realization.

Alternately, would this suggest that the souls in Hell might have greater empathy than those in Heaven after a thousand years? Might God ultimately be tempted to favor them in the end since only they might be able to plumb the true depths of feeling in a way more similar to God’s own abilities?

Unfortunately, those in Hell are the ones who never learned to care for others. They are the ones that curse God for their suffering and look for ways to take advantage of their fellow man.

 

[paul_c]

uote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
There is a huge difference in what you are saying. The office thief is deterred from stealing because of the threat of some penalty. The Christian is deterred from sinning, not because of the the threat of penalty, but because he desires what is best for others and realizes that sin hurts them and he wants to avoid this… In other words, the thief acts out of self interest, while the Christian acts out of love. This is the difference between those that enter hell and those that enter heaven…

Honestly, a devout Catholic doesn’t worry much about eternal damnation. The focus is on doing the will of God - to love him and others. If we do that, we have nothing to fear.

Further, could not the atheist thief be instructed on how the theft impacts his character–which, it must be assumed, he esteems as much as any Christian–so as to cause him to rethink his actions? Alternately, could he not learn to love his superior sufficiently to realize the theft might reflect poorly upon him and so desist?

Maybe but this is still not love. It is self centered, not centered on the benefit of the other person. You mention worries about impacting his character or the theft reflecting poorly on the thief. If he loved, he would worry that he was harming someone else.

In fine, it would appear that the Christian may have a moral advantage from the point of view of not requiring a need to love all those they might encounter in order not to be tempted to take advantage of them (since by loving a single entity, God, they are able to substitute him for any other), but if the psychology behind the good behavior appears repeatable in the case of the atheist, wherein might enter the supernatural?

Are you starting to understand how poor your understanding of God and those that do his will really is? Catholics don’t substitute love of God for love of their neighbors. They love God THROUGH their love of their neighbors. You are so fixated on self interest, you simply can not fathom true love - where people actually care for others above themselves.

In other words, if the atheist has rejected God, is he not necessarily in league with God’s enemies?

Even those that reject God are called by God to do his will through the urgings of their consciences.

If so, how might he be expected to behave properly in any context?

No one says that athiests are necessarily evil doers. They still have their consciences and societal expectations to guide them.

And yet, seemingly, he does…or else might not a visit to Japan be something of a nightmare?

I don’t get the Japanese reference but the athiest does have a significant disadvantage in that he doesn’t understand love because he doesn’t have the full context of the meaning of life.as you have amply proved in this discourse.

 

[paul_c]

Your struggle with timelessness is the struggle of all human beings. God must be outside of time and space. Otherwise He could not have created it. Wrapping our minds around this sends us into spins. This is why we simply have to accept the truth of it, whether we understand it or not. So also with the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and many other theological concepts. We have to accept even non-theological concepts, too. The idea of billions of stars, for instance. Try to think in billions - we can’t.

I have no issue with any of this.

Okay, I think we can agree that love is an conscious act derived from the will.

Love being ‘an action’ is fine, except that, as a definition, I don’t believe it applies to what Heaven is like. All actions must tend towards something - righting a wrong, fixing a problem, tending to needs. In Heaven, we will have arrived. We will have the Beatific Vision. We will be in

God’s love. I can’t say it any more clearly than that, although others may be able to.

God bless. Think about what you are saying here. When we are in the beatific vision, we will have all we need. That’s the point. Its not that in heaven we will have no needs, Its that all our needs will be met. That is God’s love in its fullness. Love is meeting the needs of others.

[/QUOTE]

 

[paul_c]

The Message, Part I
Let us consider first the message. Irrespective of the existence of God, the message offered by the New Testament authors appears to be a genuinely satisfying means of achieving a moderately peace-filled existence. A world run on these principles would seemingly be sufficiently harmonious. Yes, certain aspects appear to treat women differently than men, but these may be edited out without impacting the more praise-worthy elements. One’s desire to live by these tenets should be generally supported.

But the point of the new testament isn’t to make the world harmonious. Its purpose is to introduce the grace giving sacraments and to teach the truths that will enable people to get to heaven. And by the way, women are different than men. They can give birth, which no man can ever do.

The Message, Part II
The message of the Old Testament appears alien to current concepts of justice, civility, love, and compassion. While perhaps a revelation to a primitive tribe of nomads, it nonetheless appears greatly flawed, meandering in its subject matter, and generally unable to stand the test of time. It is difficult to imagine a divine origin as many of the suggested practices are not only barbaric, but seemingly without purpose. The emphasis on hating and destroying appears paramount while demonstrations of compassion and building up are largely absent. Not once do any of the authors advise the Israelites to be a peaceful neighbor, to assist others in times of difficulty, or to spare innocents in a conflict.

The purpose of the Old Testament is to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. It is not to create harmony in the world. You can’t understand this if you look at it from a purely secular view.

Existence of God
Given that the evidence for the existence of God is based in no small part upon the messages allegedly provided by him in his biblical record, it seems appropriate to weigh their consistency and reliability.

It is probable that the original audience understood these messages differently and so understood God differently, but to modern eyes the Old Testament appears a strange contrivance whose very existence tends to contradict support for an all-knowing, all-loving, unchanging God from the beginning of time. God appears to have changed his mind more often than might be expected of an omniscient being, and created far more needless suffering than the claims of his loving and compassionate nature might be able to properly support. His standards have also evolved throughout history, both dramatically after the New Testament, as well as gradually throughout history: the god of vengeance and justice has seemingly been transformed into the god of peace, love, and understanding.

Again, you are looking at this from a flawed secular perspective. God is both just and merciful. As I thought you understood before, suffering leads to love. Because God is perfect, he never changes his mind. I know the passages you are probably thinking about. Abraham negotiates with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance and the account is written from Abraham’s perspective and hence, he thought he had changed God’s mind.

These issues place his existence or, at the very least, understanding of his temperament, in doubt.

proof of God’s existence doesn’t require the bible. God can be proved through reason. See Thomas Aquinas proofs on this. As for understanding the nature of God, you need Church tradition to help you on that. The bible on its own is open to too many false interpretations.

If one is not convinced of God’s goodness, is one apt to desire a heaven in which God might be forever close by? If such a one might die and discover God to be completely good, might not Heaven then be genuinely desired–but would it be too late given the realization came after the choice in this life was already made?

It takes a great deal of arrogance to second guess God or to think you some how are more moral than He is. You need to learn to love - which means to start worrying about others instead of yourself. That is what it takes to get to heaven. To desire heaven is to desire to serve.

 

[minkymurph]

The Message, Part I
Let us consider first the message. Irrespective of the existence of God, the message offered by the New Testament authors appears to be a genuinely satisfying means of achieving a moderately peace-filled existence. A world run on these principles would seemingly be sufficiently harmonious. Yes, certain aspects appear to treat women differently than men, but these may be edited out without impacting the more praise-worthy elements. One’s desire to live by these tenets should be generally supported.

I would agree with this. The principles are the important part, rather than the implementation which is context sensitive. Women were, and are treated differently in different cultures. Again, I would say this context sensitive and editing out would not impact on the principles and praiseworthy elements.

 

[minkymurph]

The Message, Part II
The message of the Old Testament appears alien to current concepts of justice, civility, love, and compassion. While perhaps a revelation to a primitive tribe of nomads, it nonetheless appears greatly flawed, meandering in its subject matter, and generally unable to stand the test of time. It is difficult to imagine a divine origin as many of the suggested practices are not only barbaric, but seemingly without purpose. The emphasis on hating and destroying appears paramount while demonstrations of compassion and building up are largely absent. Not once do any of the authors advise the Israelites to be a peaceful neighbor, to assist others in times of difficulty, or to spare innocents in a conflict.

There is no doubt a comparison of the Image of God in the OT and the NT is confusing, to say the least, and seemingly impossible to reconcile. Personally I think the OT should carry an over 18 certificate. Certain suggested practices do appear barbaric and without purpose.

There are those who would be of the opinion if it’s in the Bible it was right, and those who carried them out were right and doing God’s will. Is this the case?

This comes back to what I was saying concerning Revelation and inspiration. The biblical account states he received the Ten Commandments from God, and these were directly spoken by God. However, how were these laws revealed to Moses? Were they spoken word for for word? The authors of the OT do not state all others laws were likewise spoken by God, but rather communicated to them by Moses. So we are faced with the question, what was revealed to Moses, and how? Did he repeat to the Israelite’s word for word what was said? There is nothing in the text to suggest someone was writing it down word for word as he said it. In addition, I don’t think parchment would have been an item in abundance in the wilderness. Therefore, the writings were compiled later and over time.

Coming back to how the Law was communicated to Moses. God’s Revelation to Moses contained divine principles, such as; pure worship, sexual morality, and the sanctity of life. Taking sexual morality, did God sit Moses down on the mountain and state, ‘adultery is wrong and if anyone commits it, stone them.’ Or, did God raise the mind/spirit of Moses to a divine level, in order for him to understand and then communicate the marriage relationship in a divine sense? When Moses came to this understand through Revelation, did he communicate to the people how it was to be lived out in the community? It is, after all, revered to as 'The Law of Moses…

Of course it can be argued that as the one chosen by God, everything Moses said had God’s ‘approval.’ The word ‘approval’ is in brackets for a reason. I would say that’s a very literal way of understanding Revelation. God didn’t ‘approve’ everything, but rather chose not to intervene in how the Israelite’s upheld the law. To support this reasoning, when Jesus was questioned on divorce, his answer was ‘Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but that was not the way it was from the beginning.’ Now it can be argued God changed his mind, or permitted a certain practice in one situation but not in another. I would suggest - is it the non-intervention - we know what the law is, it is for us to decide how to put it into practice in the times and culture we live in to the best of our ability.

Another example I would give you is the institution of the Monarchy. It is recorded in scripture God didn’t actually recommend the institution of a Monarchy. The Israelite’s wanted a Monarchy, and it came with a warning. Through Samuel, God told the Israelite’s what would happen. The Monarch would burden them with taxes, take their children as slaves, be unjust and lead their young men into war. However, the Israelite’s chose to have a King, and God let them have their way. God’s warning proved true and the Deuteronomistic historian has a very negative view of monarchy for these reasons. The Israelite’s learned the hard way having a monarchy wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Perhaps they needed to.

 

[minkymurph]

The message of the Old Testament appears alien to current concepts of justice, civility, love, and compassion. While perhaps a revelation to a primitive tribe of nomads, it nonetheless appears greatly flawed, meandering in its subject matter, and generally unable to stand the test of time. It is difficult to imagine a divine origin as many of the suggested practices are not only barbaric, but seemingly without purpose. The emphasis on hating and destroying appears paramount while demonstrations of compassion and building up are largely absent. Not once do any of the authors advise the Israelites to be a peaceful neighbor, to assist others in times of difficulty, or to spare innocents in a conflict.

There is no doubt the Israelite’s lived in a rough justice society which seems totally alien to us today. There are parts of the OT that seem horrific, and the way God is portrayed in the OT we wonder how people could believe in such a God.

To take the example of adultery again. We find tribes and peoples today were adultery is punishable by death. Small communities such as these have very strict moral codes because the repercussions of adultery and multiple sexual partners is much greater. Therefore, the penalty is greater. The reason for this is preservation of the tribe, their culture, and way of life, which requires adhering to strict moral codes. Therefore, when the Divine Law was revealed to Moses, he had the responsibility of preserving it. However, this did not mean someone who committed adultery could not be shown mercy. King David was shown mercy and forgiven. Jesus re-iterated this principle in the NT. When the adulteress was thrown at his feet, he said, ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ When a woman of dubious reputation entered the house were he was dining, he recounted a parable to illustrate showing mercy and forgiving is the greater act than retribution - that the ‘slave’ who is forgiven more will love his ‘master’ more.

I disagree that not once do any of the authors advise the Israelites to be a peaceful neighbor, to assist others in times of difficulty, or to spare innocents in a conflict. I Certainly, there are many accounts in the OT that are triumphalist, victory in war and slaughtering enemies, (It was that kind of world) and the authors of the OT focus on the supremacy of their God over all others as that was what was important in that time. In addition, the Ancient Near East was often socially and politically unstable and they were turbulent times. However, there were times the Israelite’s did live at peace with their neighbors, and other passages do focus on this.

What was termed the ‘Golden Age’ of Israel was a time of prosperity and stability as a consequence of diplomatic relations formed with other powerful nations by David, and then Solomon. The prophets, particularly Joel and Amos, frequently preached of social justice in addition to the restoration of pure worship, which is one of the reasons why prophets proved unpopular with monarch’s as they frequently criticized them. There are other occasions, such as in Isaiah, were the Israelite’s were advised against going to war. People aren’t so familiar with these passages of scripture. I suppose it’s part of human nature to focus on the gore rather than the nice bits when reading any piece of literature.

 

[minkymurph]

If one is not convinced of God’s goodness, is one apt to desire a heaven in which God might be forever close by? If such a one might die and discover God to be completely good, might not Heaven then be genuinely desired–but would it be too late given the realization came after the choice in this life was already made?

I have no idea. However, as we’re speaking of a hypothetical scenario and speculating on how an individual would be judged by God …

I’m assuming you’re talking about a person who would have reached an age of understanding. My theory would be - perhaps it would depend on why that person was not, at any point of their life convinced of God’s goodness. In addition, what would convince the hypothetical person of God’s goodness once they die? If they don’t believe it in this life, why would they believe it in the next?

Assuredly it may, but surely it must be considered highly spurious to contrive to be unconvinced while at the same time devoting great amounts of time and energy in the pursuit of a conviction?

One only comes to believe in the goodness of God through engagement with God. To illustrate, if one was considering marriage, one could read their autobiography, ask questions of people who know them, and meet members of their family. However, is not fair to say you would need to engage with them at some point before making a lifetime commitment?

 

[eternalrest]

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?

Faith has a basis in proof and observable certainty. See Therese Neumann who lived on the Eucharist alone. She was observed even by several nonbelievers under rigorous conditions.

God punishes people in a way that each person accepts as fair. When you die, your conscience will judge you, and you will go where you think you should go. See St. Bridget of Sweden.

However, if a soul’s will is not corrected, that soul is then confined by an end without end. What happens is that the devil, knowing that each person will be judged according to his conscience and intention, labors mightily at the end of life to distract the soul and turn it away from rectitude of intention, and God allows it to happen, since the soul refused to remain vigilant when it ought to have.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You simply don’t understand God. You only understand your characterization of God.

Kindly consider, how might we differ in this respect? Is it possible for one to properly understand God or is it only possible to understand a given characterization?

You somehow have come to believe that you are superior to the all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. How foolish you are…

It is agreed that one certainly would be foolish to imagine themselves in any way superior to an omnipotent and omniscient being. Fortunately for us both such a consideration is not intended.

The apparent misapplication of God’s apparent message is a source of confusion, not derision.

God is completely consistent and just - he is the author of the eternal truths that we are all beholden to.

When was it last that you might have felt compelled to follow all of God’s ~620 commandments? Which among these eternal truths, to which one might be perpetually beholden, might have clearly expired?

Faith is not obedience without question.

Did questioning God commonly achieve positive results? Has not blind faith had a large part of shaping the difficulties in the Middle East? If it was not desired by God why was the opposite view so clearly stressed by those who claimed to speak in his name?

God gave us the gift of reason and free will to be used. What God does is lead us to the truth that sets us free.

What if its usage might instead lead one away from God? Is their reason and/or free will defective?

We all have consciences, after all.

It is worthy to note that not all consciences appear to be created equally. Is not the potential cruelty of children well known? Does not the conscience seemingly develop with time and substantive experience? If so, is it possible to consider the conscience to be more strongly associated with empathy than with an imprinted divine standard?

God is not curious, He is omniscient and omnipresent. Our life tests are for US to find out what we value, not for God, He already knows.

He already knows that a newborn infant is destined to reject him and spend an eternity in Hell and yet does nothing at all to prevent it? He knew that allotting the “Promised Land” to the Israelites would clearly lead to the Palestinian crises and be a source of perpetual conflict and yet provided no safe-guards?

God is indeed love. He gives everyone, everything they have including life itself and no one can give him anything in return.

Can they not even love him in return?

And this includes the Middianites and the Canaanites.

Is it to be understood that his love was so great that he ordered the Israelites to massacre every man, woman, and child in order that they might immediately arrive in Heaven–even though he did not approve of them while on Earth?

And yes, God will give everyone who chooses love, ever lasting love in heaven. And this is freely given.

What of one who chooses love, but not God? What might be freely given to that one?

Is that your problem? You don’t trust God to do what he says?

That appears a part of the difficulty, yes. Further, it is feared that he might equally follow through on other “promises” [threats]. Finally, it is considered that such a being of radically changing dispositions might not be sufficiently stable…perhaps even to exist.

Frankly, what do you have to lose by trusting God, who loved you enough to create you?

It is a good question, but the fear is that such an omniscient god would clearly see through the deception: how might one attempt to love a being they distrust?

Your personal experience is limited.

True, but it is all one is expected to have. It was surprising, given that the individuals in question appeared to be reasonably kind.

Catholic Charities give to all without question of their faith. That is why there is such a problem with the HHS mandate. If they only serviced Catholics, they would meet the administration requirements. As it is, they service non-Catholics as well, without prejudice.

It is not to be suggested that any might be at fault for their charitable giving, but more for when the giving might be personal. Is it not consistent that a faith that teaches that “evil-doers” will arrive at their just desserts might have among its members a large number who might equate ill fortune on any clearly outside the fold as a sign of further “desserts” to come? Is it not understandable that they might be habituated with a practice of considering if they may be intervening in a task best left to God to complete?

I applaud you for coming to this realization.

It is the opinion of this poster that Christians are very valuable members of the global society. They are greatly admired in spite of not being properly understood.

Unfortunately, those in Hell are the ones who never learned to care for others. They are the ones that curse God for their suffering and look for ways to take advantage of their fellow man.

If God is the force that keeps them in such a state, and promises to do so forever without reprieve, is it not understandable that those suffering therein might be tempted to offer him curses? The question to be considered is whether such ones might have been of a mind to curse such a god prior to their hellish installment. Perhaps some might, but what of the others?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Honestly, a devout Catholic doesn’t worry much about eternal damnation. The focus is on doing the will of God - to love him and others. If we do that, we have nothing to fear.

But must it not play a role of some sort? Is not a fear of Hell at least momentarily considered when faced with a truly strong temptation?

Maybe but this is still not love. It is self centered, not centered on the benefit of the other person. You mention worries about impacting his character or the theft reflecting poorly on the thief. If he loved, he would worry that he was harming someone else.

This is a fair point: the thief seemingly is able only to act altruistically when confronted with personal consequences, but what of the atheist who genuinely loves those surrounding him? Might he be able to consider the possibility that the manager, whom he loves, might be blamed for the alarming increase in paper usage? Or is it considered that an atheist cannot offer genuine love so long as he is cut off from the source of such love?

Are you starting to understand how poor your understanding of God and those that do his will really is? Catholics don’t substitute love of God for love of their neighbors. They love God THROUGH their love of their neighbors.

My apologies for the improper characterization. It was assumed that Christians might use such a devise to love an enemy or an individual they do not know–that by substituting Christ the task might be simpler, but if this is not how it is done the subject will have to be reconsidered in light of the alternative.

So how is it possible for a Christian to love God through a complete stranger? Perhaps even someone who has caused them past harm? Are they able to identify in some way with these others or are they so overflowing with love that it is merely a natural reaction?

You are so fixated on self interest, you simply can not fathom true love - where people actually care for others above themselves.

It is difficult to consider such an open concept of love for those unknown or actively disliked, but for those in one’s close proximity it would seem a variety of loves appear to naturally spring forth depending on time and circumstance.

Even those that reject God are called by God to do his will through the urgings of their consciences.

To what end? If the atheist is damned regardless of other acts, why might God concern himself with such a calling?

No one says that athiests are necessarily evil doers.

If one were to arrive at a hall filled with Christians and declare themselves an atheist how many of the reactions might be positive–or even simply neutral?

They still have their consciences and societal expectations to guide them.
I don’t get the Japanese reference

A large percentage of the Japanese are atheist.

but the athiest does have a significant disadvantage in that he doesn’t understand love because he doesn’t have the full context of the meaning of life.as you have amply proved in this discourse.

How is it possible to consider one’s grasp of life’s meaning as correct while assuming all others to be in ignorance? Is it not possible that the uncertainty expressed by this poster is a consequence of having been instructed on such a meaning from a variety of incompatible sources? If all cannot be right, is it not fair for one to consider that it is possible that none are?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

But the point of the new testament isn’t to make the world harmonious. Its purpose is to introduce the grace giving sacraments and to teach the truths that will enable people to get to heaven.

OK, but if all followed its suggestions, would not the world be akin to Heaven and thus harmonious?

And by the way, women are different than men. They can give birth, which no man can ever do.

Certainly they are different, but was this what St. Paul was considering when he suggested women were unworthy to speak in church?

The purpose of the Old Testament is to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. It is not to create harmony in the world. You can’t understand this if you look at it from a purely secular view.

Is it considered that the Canaanites might have been impeding Christ’s arrival?

To clarify, would not the Old Testament have likely been a far shorter work if its only task were to warn all of an impending Christ?

Further, would not any work originating from a being of infinite love and compassion have had these sentiments incorporated within any ulterior message? How might a god of love have given instructions on which other humans might be worthy of hate and which should be murdered?

Again, you are looking at this from a flawed secular perspective.

Regrettably, it is the only one I seemingly have at this time, although an effort is being made to consider alternate perspectives.

God is both just and merciful. As I thought you understood before, suffering leads to love.

The suffering to which a reference was being made was not merely the substance of bruises and bumps: God commanded and orchestrated the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of individuals. It is difficult to reconcile such a violent record with a compassionate and loving being.

Because God is perfect, he never changes his mind. I know the passages you are probably thinking about. Abraham negotiates with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance and the account is written from Abraham’s perspective and hence, he thought he had changed God’s mind.

Actually the passages in mind had to do with God choosing to flood the world and regretting the existence of his creation. His anger at mankind makes little sense if he knew of such events prior to creation.

proof of God’s existence doesn’t require the bible. God can be proved through reason. See Thomas Aquinas proofs on this.

More specifically, is it not simply “a god” that might be described through such processes, but in order to arrive at “God” proper, does one not require the Bible?

As for understanding the nature of God, you need Church tradition to help you on that. The bible on its own is open to too many false interpretations.

How might it be possible to consider an omniscient god who was not aware that his writing style might prove so problematic? Or is it to be considered that he was fully aware of same, but chose to do so purposefully?

It takes a great deal of arrogance to second guess God or to think you some how are more moral than He is. You need to learn to love - which means to start worrying about others instead of yourself. That is what it takes to get to heaven. To desire heaven is to desire to serve.

Agreed, it would be arrogant to second-guess God, but would it be arrogant to second-guess those who merely purport to speak on his behalf?

Are you willing to serve one such as myself in order to properly arrive at Heaven?

 

[sw85]

56 pages later, and have we still not answered this question?

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?

The simple answer is that Hell can’t not suck.

It’s not an issue of God being spiteful and nasty. God doesn’t have the power to make separation from Him anything less than a punishment because that’s objectively just what it is. He can’t do it any more than He can create an uncreated being.

 

[ivebeenshown]

OK, but if all followed its suggestions, would not the world be akin to Heaven and thus harmonious?

Save for the matter of death and natural suffering…

Certainly they are different, but was this what St. Paul was considering when he suggested women were unworthy to speak in church?

That may have been his opinion… not a dogma. The bible is rife with social and cultural influences that must be taken into consideration.

Actually the passages in mind had to do with God choosing to flood the world and regretting the existence of his creation. His anger at mankind makes little sense if he knew of such events prior to creation.

Parents know that some day, their children are going to disobey and anger them. Does that mean it makes little sense for the parent to get angry when the child is being unruly? A good parent feels rejected and hurt and angry if their child sneaks out and gets high with their buddies and sleeps around. Those feelings may sometimes make a parent wish the child was not born. That feeling often reflects despair more than a true desire for such. The parent feels these things because he/she loves the child.

More specifically, is it not simply “a god” that might be described through such processes, but in order to arrive at “God” proper, does one not require the Bible?

The Bible is great, it’s cool beans, but it is not required now, nor was it before the matter of the canon was settled some several hundred years after Christ’s ascension.

How might it be possible to consider an omniscient god who was not aware that his writing style might prove so problematic? Or is it to be considered that he was fully aware of same, but chose to do so purposefully?

God foresaw division and confusion, certainly – but we can choose to accept or reject a proposition based on trust and faith whether or not we understand exactly why the proposition is true. God is not at fault or responsible for your bad decisions, or anyone else’s. We all must accept responsibility for our own actions – whether it is accepting or rejecting a salvific truth or something else.

Agreed, it would be arrogant to second-guess God, but would it be arrogant to second-guess those who merely purport to speak on his behalf?

Maybe, maybe not.

Are you willing to serve one such as myself in order to properly arrive at Heaven?

I would say that person already is.

Now, your concerns about the ‘bloody passages’ I have yet to address because I don’t yet have a good answer for you. I admit that. I don’t need to know why immediately, though – I trust that the passages have an explanation, and I will be glad to find that when the time comes.

 

[sw85]

**Now, your concerns about the ‘bloody passages’ I have yet to address because I don’t yet have a good answer for you. I admit that. I don’t need to know why immediately, though – I trust **that the passages have an explanation, and I will be glad to find that when the time comes.

John Duns Scotus addressed this issue a long, LONG time ago. Like seven centuries ago or so. The natural law (which includes things like don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.) was ordained by God insofar as it arises from our nature as created beings. Thus God can issue exemptions from it.

In a similar way, God has ordained fire to be a source of heat. Thus He could cause a pot of water placed over a fire to grow cold simply by willing it – but He cannot make it such that the fire is the source of its growing cold (only His will is the source of its growing cold).

Natural law is always subordinate to divine law.

 

[ivebeenshown]

John Duns Scotus addressed this issue a long, LONG time ago. Like seven centuries ago or so. The natural law (which includes things like don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.) was ordained by God insofar as it arises from our nature as created beings. Thus God can issue exemptions from it.

In a similar way, God has ordained fire to be a source of heat. Thus He could cause a pot of water placed over a fire to grow cold simply by willing it – but He cannot make it such that the fire is the source of its growing cold (only His will is the source of its growing cold).

Natural law is always subordinate to divine law.

You’ve given me another starting point from which to begin studying, but I will have to come to terms with a solution on my own time. I can’t help anyone to understand it unless I understand it myself!

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
You simply don’t understand God. You only understand your characterization of God.

While it is true that God is too great for us to comprehend everything about Him, it is possible to gain some knowledge of Him if you are attentive to his witnesses on earth. He spent 33 years on earth in the person of Jesus Christ so that we would be able to know him. My point was that you seem to be operating under false assumptions.

Quote:
You somehow have come to believe that you are superior to the all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. How foolish you are…

Okay. that’s an encouraging start to dialog.

Quote:
God is completely consistent and just - he is the author of the eternal truths that we are all beholden to.

I’m not sure where this number came from but all of teh Bible laws can be summarized in the great commandment: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Love is doing things for others without expecting anything back. If you have other’s good as the basis for your existence, then you will meet all the commandments without finding them to be a burden.

Quote:
Faith is not obedience without question.

In asking questions, we arrive at the truth about God. God wants that for us. But there are different ways to ask questions. When confronted with a church teaching that doesn’t make sense to you, you can give the Church the church the benefit of the doubt by asking yourself what you are missing and then doing the necessary research to find out why the church teaches what it teaches. Or you could simply assume that you are right and ask yourself how the Church could be so wrong… The first method leads to wisdom and understanding. the second does not. As for the problems in the Middle east, it comes from a lack of love and understanding.

Quote:
God gave us the gift of reason and free will to be used. What God does is lead us to the truth that sets us free.

When reason leads you away from God, it usually means you haven’t been exposed to all the information or that you have internal or external biases that cloud your judgement.

Quote:
We all have consciences, after all.

yes, some people ignore their consciences and they become dull. Other people become more and more in tune to their consciences over time. I think empathy is simply being in tune to the needs of others adn that this is part of an imprinted divine standard (as you put it)

Quote:
God is not curious, He is omniscient and omnipresent. Our life tests are for US to find out what we value, not for God, He already knows.

He allows us to make our own decisions, which is an act of love and respect. Would you prefer a God that didn’t allow free will?

 

[paul_c]

He knew that allotting the “Promised Land” to the Israelites would clearly lead to the Palestinian crises and be a source of perpetual conflict and yet provided no safe-guards?

God is not adverse to human suffering on earth because it leads to love.

Quote:
God is indeed love. He gives everyone, everything they have including life itself and no one can give him anything in return.

God does not need our love. He desires it because it is good for us to love him, not for his benefit but for ours.

Quote:
And this includes the Middianites and the Canaanites.

I don’t think he ordered the Palestinians to be massacred so that they could go to heaven - although perhaps some of them did-. Death doesn’t mean the same to God as it does to you. For God, its the end of their test and the beginning of their eternity so God had decided it was time for this transition for them. For you, its just the end… Obviously the ramifications are different when you look at it differently.

And yes, God will give everyone who chooses love, ever lasting love in heaven. And this is freely given.

God IS the source of all love. You can’t truly choose love in the absence of God. Surely you are starting to recognize the difference in approaches…

Quote:
Is that your problem? You don’t trust God to do what he says?

This is a function of your misunderstanding of God. God does everything for love, which is self-giving. You think he should be doing things for your comfort, when actually your discomfort is often to increase your love or the love of others toward you. This misconception of motives leads you to think as you do.

Quote:
Frankly, what do you have to lose by trusting God, who loved you enough to create you?

Of course He sees through any attempt to deceive. You won’t distrust Him, however, if you learn more about His motives.

Quote:
Your personal experience is limited.

The point is that things aren’t always as we perceived them.

Quote:
Catholic Charities give to all without question of their faith. That is why there is such a problem with the HHS mandate. If they only serviced Catholics, they would meet the administration requirements. As it is, they service non-Catholics as well, without prejudice.

Remember, a devout Catholic works for the salvation of all souls. One who loves is saddened by sin and suffering and works to reduce them. You completely misunderstand our motivations and that’s why your conclusions are faulty.

Quote:
I applaud you for coming to this realization.

I’ve been on this path before. I would not be shocked if you were in RCIA in the next 6 months.

Quote:
Unfortunately, those in Hell are the ones who never learned to care for others. They are the ones that curse God for their suffering and look for ways to take advantage of their fellow man.

Have you ever read “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis? In it he gives his own view of heaven and hell and that anyone in Hell can go to heaven whenever they want. The problem is that the things they value: money, sex, power, etc, simply don’t exist in heaven so none of the damned want to be there. I don’t think Lewis is far from the truth in this regard.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There is no doubt a comparison of the Image of God in the OT and the NT is confusing, to say the least, and seemingly impossible to reconcile. Personally I think the OT should carry an over 18 certificate. Certain suggested practices do appear barbaric and without purpose.

There are those who would be of the opinion if it’s in the Bible it was right, and those who carried them out were right and doing God’s will. Is this the case?

This comes back to what I was saying concerning Revelation and inspiration. The biblical account states he received the Ten Commandments from God, and these were directly spoken by God. However, how were these laws revealed to Moses? Were they spoken word for for word? The authors of the OT do not state all others laws were likewise spoken by God, but rather communicated to them by Moses. So we are faced with the question, what was revealed to Moses, and how? Did he repeat to the Israelite’s word for word what was said? There is nothing in the text to suggest someone was writing it down word for word as he said it. In addition, I don’t think parchment would have been an item in abundance in the wilderness. Therefore, the writings were compiled later and over time.

Coming back to how the Law was communicated to Moses. God’s Revelation to Moses contained divine principles, such as; pure worship, sexual morality, and the sanctity of life. Taking sexual morality, did God sit Moses down on the mountain and state, ‘adultery is wrong and if anyone commits it, stone them.’ Or, did God raise the mind/spirit of Moses to a divine level, in order for him to understand and then communicate the marriage relationship in a divine sense? When Moses came to this understand through Revelation, did he communicate to the people how it was to be lived out in the community? It is, after all, revered to as 'The Law of Moses…

Of course it can be argued that as the one chosen by God, everything Moses said had God’s ‘approval.’ The word ‘approval’ is in brackets for a reason. I would say that’s a very literal way of understanding Revelation. God didn’t ‘approve’ everything, but rather chose not to intervene in how the Israelite’s upheld the law. To support this reasoning, when Jesus was questioned on divorce, his answer was ‘Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but that was not the way it was from the beginning.’ Now it can be argued God changed his mind, or permitted a certain practice in one situation but not in another. I would suggest - is it the non-intervention - we know what the law is, it is for us to decide how to put it into practice in the times and culture we live in to the best of our ability.

Another example I would give you is the institution of the Monarchy. It is recorded in scripture God didn’t actually recommend the institution of a Monarchy. The Israelite’s wanted a Monarchy, and it came with a warning. Through Samuel, God told the Israelite’s what would happen. The Monarch would burden them with taxes, take their children as slaves, be unjust and lead their young men into war. However, the Israelite’s chose to have a King, and God let them have their way. God’s warning proved true and the Deuteronomistic historian has a very negative view of monarchy for these reasons. The Israelite’s learned the hard way having a monarchy wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Perhaps they needed to.

This is about as fair an assessment as can be made given the evidence. Thank you.