Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

From what I understand, God has already paid for the sins of his children past, present and future when Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross. All human beings are his children and they have this sense of naivety/innocense especially in fully understanding and knowing who their father is in comparison to the angels who possessed far more intelligence and knowledge of God. Human beings are saveable but angels who reject God are not! Therefore, Hell is meant for Satan and all the angels who rebelled against God because they were jealous of God’s children and refused to bow down to them. That is the trademark of Satan and the bad angels, they like/love the sin(disobedience and separation from God) and dislike or hate people. JESUS on the other hand taught us to hate the sins but to love the sinners(people). BIG DIFFERENCE! And I do believe that this should always be a point of reference for all of us, brothers and sisters, on how to treat each other.

Then why might the Rich man have appealed to Lazarus for water if all of mankind are to be so saved?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I haven’t been able to get near this site for weeks, now, and am bamboozled by the number of new posts on this topic. The thread seems to have strayed well and truly away from where it was, which is in the nature of it all, and only to be expected. Need a clear head (and lots of time) to get to the nub of it all, and am debating exactly what to do.

God bless all.

Welcome back, Carol. Simply respond to whichever of the myriad of questions with which you feel most comfortable or which appears most appropriate for this moment. Likely or not we might return to the others through the course of normal conversation if they are pressing enough to warrant the attention.

Regards,

Jelrak TB

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Well we can’t truly judge what went through Hitler’s mind but what seems clear is that he valued power over love…That is always the case with sin- the sinner values something over doing God’s will, even after being told that such a path leads to condemnation.

OK

Again, you are looking at this solely from the vantage point of death being the end of an individual and suffering being the worst thing that can happen. The informed Christian can see past this secular view and recognize that suffering leads to love and death is simply moving on the next stage of existence.

It is a position that appears difficult to surmount given it requires a presupposition of the outcome. If one believes that death is final, how is one to reach beyond the instinctive revulsion one might feel for an omnipotent being that might not only choose not to assist the victims of a massacre, but actually be the driving force behind the brutality? To then be expected to consider that entity the most loving and personally concerned becomes extremely trying.

Further, given that murder might be considered among the most egregious of crimes is it not difficult to image a being of infinite love and care commanding its occurrence?

I didn’t say it was wrong to question. I said that you should be open to the fact that the church is right in what it teaches and that your first response shouldn’t be that the Church is wrong, when the more likely truth is that you simply don’t understand what it is teaching and why.

OK

Well, you are right that those that try to interpret the bible on their own, even with laborious study, are likely to be wrong. The truth of salvation was past down to the church for it to be explained to the people… Scripture is an aid developed by the church for spreading that truth, but it can not be done in a vacuum.

Yet seemingly other churches hold an equal view of their authority. Is God’s disinterest so great as to allow these, too, to carry on in his name? Or is there some divine purpose to be had in allowing the sewing of such seeds of confusion?

1. you are judging God;s dealing with the midianites according to human standards, where suffering equates to evil and death is the end of existence, Actually God puts us in situations where we can grow in faith and love, even if we can’t see it at the time.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is the fate of the surviving Midianites that seems even less likely to breed individuals with a striving passion to love such a god.

Alternately, perhaps hardship is actually what is known as good by the divine? Is it not possible that, much as a truly great poet might require a source of suffering from which to draw in order to provide such deep prose, a soul in suffering is a joy for God to behold? If so, might not Heaven be a locale of great privation rather than abundance?

That is good but your situation is different from that of the time and can’t be judged in the same way.

OK, but how is one to know the extent of God’s potential demands given such a brutal past?

That’s fair, but remember Moses had credibility because of the miracles God did at his hands (the 10 plagues, the parting of the red sea, manna from heaven, etc.)

Would this suggest that no one since he might have as great an authority (given that no others have as to yet offered such an array of authoritative proofs)? If so, should one be giving close consideration to some or all of the other 620 commands he equally taught?

You aren’t debating the existence of God, you are searching for His nature. Start with the basic philosophy of God: the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. And then remember, if God created the universe, he defines what is right and wrong in that universe. The third point is the most telling and it says to me that your concern is how much you are willing to give to the creator that gave you everything. You seem to be looking for excuses not to love God.

If one is not convinced of the existence of God, but one is willing to behave perfunctorily in the off-chance of his existence, is one not likely to inquire after the sum total of required acts and abstinences in order to properly weigh the choice? Certainly it does not suggest a loving attitude might be adopted, but in such early days how might one expect otherwise?

This is really for you to explore your self. I hope to help you by pointing out where to look.

OK, thank you.

Well, one thing seems clear is that so far you are judging God’s action based on a very secular view of what is important. Try to think about what is important to a God who can create anything he wants from nothing.

It is true that the image of God is being so judged, but slightly less true that it might be God himself.

Alternately, if God is able to create anything he wants from nothing is it possible to consider that he might wish for souls to fall into Hell for some reason (benign or otherwise) not yet understood?

Okay, I’m not trying to judge you, just to give you food for thought. Love, which is doing things for others, is what is really important.

OK

What account are you referencing?

Whereby Satan refused to serve based on the premise of mankind’s alleged superiority.

You don’t come across here as having a retiring personality…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Hell is more than a rumor, is it not? Many people are deterred from crimes without ever having seen a jail in real life or the inside of a gas chamber.

It is known without doubt that jails exist; Hell’s existence is in no way as certain.

They value things more than heaven.

What sort of things?

Its the selfless who make the best of any situation and the selfish who are never satisfied with what they have.

Yes and no: is it not the case that a selfless individual might allow another their seat on a bus, thus arriving at suffering voluntarily, while a selfish individual might be quite pleased to be offered such a chance to relax at the expense of another?

I’m no psychologist but I would say that blaming every crime on mental deficiency is denying any sense of personal responsibility for our own decisions.

Is it not a fact that the majority of those incarcerated are either of below average intelligence, have difficulty learning, or are afflicted with a variety of mental and/or psychological ailments? Is it unlikely to conceive that an individual with intelligence might be more able to judge cause and effect than one less gifted?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

"It is fair to conclude that a belief in God is a possibility, but currently there are several difficulties:

1. If a god, which god?
2. If God, which temperament?
3. If God, which degree of religious fervor must be adopted?"

You aren’t debating the existence of God, you are searching for His nature.

This is exactly the problem. The perceived nature of God becomes a sticking point for those who may otherwise accept His existence. There are those who obdurately refuse to look at any evidence at all, and are blinded by their own prejudices and inclinations. They are willing to distort and caricature Christianity by writing books such as The God Delusion.

There are others, however, who are inclined to believe, but who can’t see past the difficulties. These people need to look at the miracles. If they are willing to look, with sincere seriousness, at the miracles wrought within the Catholic Church, then they can work backwards, from the evidence of God’s work, to the truth of His Church, and to the truth of His teachings.

If the miracles really did take place, then at least some of the Catholic Church’s claims must be true. If the Catholic Church is the true Church, and has existed for around 2,000 years, then Jesus must have established it. If Jesus did establish the Catholic Church, then what the Church teaches about Him must be true. If Jesus is really God-made-man, and the Messiah, then at least some aspects of Scripture must be true, and must be accepted as the Revelation of the one, true God. This means that even the difficult and seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture must have some true meaning within the context of the whole of Scripture. And so it goes on, each link in the chain being connected to another. Today’s evidence points to the truth through history, and this applies both backwards and forwards.

God bless.

This seems reasonable, but does not the conversation then become:

1. Are miracles truly evidence of God’s legitimacy?
2. If so, which religion’s miracles should be considered true (thereby invalidating all others)?
3. Which miracles within that religion might then be considered true?

Alternately, could one not then undo the chain by disproving such miracles, thereby unraveling each successive step?

 

[fred_conty]

Jelrak,

To answer the “justice” question, we first have to know intellectually what we mean by God, and we must understand that there is a God.

Agnosticism does not understand that there must be a God.
Agnosticism means I don’t know, and probably also I don’t care.

Since hell exists only if God exists, for an agnostic this is a mute question, and the “justice” would also fall into that same category.

so, what do you think?

 

[je333]

True and False Disciples is one reason - yes - and would explain why someone would devote their life to a religion they don’t believe in. However, I would say it’s more complex.

To explain, some people follow a religion out of fear, fear of others in that religion and a desire for approval from them, and fear of the repercussions of leaving it. In this instance, religion becomes more about having approval of others, particularly those who are influential within that religion, than it is about God. That is what my reference to religion taking precedence over God meant - people being more concerned about what others think of them rather than follow what they believe in their heart to be true.



Jesus used the phrase, ‘the kingdom God is like’ many times, and illustrated it with many parables. I see the ‘kingdom of God’ as like the earthly extension of heaven? That doesn’t really explain it, but it’s the best I can come up with.

I am fully knowledgeable of what the Kingdom of God is. It was just surprising to me to stumble upon the Kingdom of Heaven. I thought there was just Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is not a place, it’s an action, a modern derivation of the Golden Rule. Basically, it’s using all the graces and blessings and talents a person has to “serve”/offer/help others and the others do the same.

 

[je333]

Then why might the Rich man have appealed to Lazarus for water if all of mankind are to be so saved?

The rich man is being purified before he can “enter” the Kingdom of God. Everyone before entering heaven must be purified either here on earth or in purgatory. I believe that is the Catholic teaching.

 

[minkymurph]

I am fully knowledgeable of what the Kingdom of God is.

That’s something I couldn’t claim.
je333;9398513:

It was just surprising to me to stumble upon the Kingdom of Heaven. I thought there was just Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is not a place, it’s an action, a modern derivation of the Golden Rule.

No, it’s not a place. I would see the Kingdom of God as many things.

 

[minkymurph]

However, for those who truly seek God, is it to be considered that not only is no religion necessary, but that no religion might genuinely be possible?

You’re question made me wonder -

In the first instance, who coined the term ‘religion?’

In the second, Jesus established a church. What is a ‘church?’ Is it a building, a set of beliefs, or a visible hierarchy? When did the church Jesus established come to be described as a ‘religion’?

There are many religions in the world, and one does have to question who benefits from these religions? Following a religion to gain the approval of those who control them, and maintain their prestige and position renders it unnecessary, as the ‘follower’ derives little in the way of spiritual benefit.

There are people who truly seek God, and try to live their lives in accordance with God, but choose not to affiliate with a particular religion. It is often the case this is due to a bad experience with organized religion. I read a book called ‘Crises of Conscience’ that was written by someone who was expelled from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He lost his faith in organized religion, but never lost his faith in God, and after his expulsion continued to believe in God and live as best he could by the bible. So, in answer to you’re question, no religion is possible for those who truly seek God, and God does not cast a person off because they don’t belong to one.

However, God is not solely an individual experience. While God does commune with us as individuals, He also communes with us collectively, and faith is something that is lived not just in addition to the lives of individuals, but in the lives of communities. Humans are naturally drawn to and associate with like-minded people with whom they share common interests and values. Therefore, it’s not a case of religion being necessary, as in ‘must to,’ but rather a natural product, and we experience greater fulfillment when faith is shared rather than lived out in isolation.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Jelrak,

To answer the “justice” question, we first have to know intellectually what we mean by God, and we must understand that there is a God.

Agnosticism does not understand that there must be a God.
Agnosticism means I don’t know, and probably also I don’t care.

Since Agnosticism is strictly about knowledge, there appears to be room for two chief types: those who merely admit not to know if God might exist and those who consider the knowledge of any god entirely unobtainable and therefore somewhat irrational to seek out.

Clearly the latter category of Agnostic would not spend time on this forum.

Since hell exists only if God exists, for an agnostic this is a mute question, and the “justice” would also fall into that same category.

so, what do you think?

Striving to understand the justice behind the concept of Hell might assist an agnostic of the former type to decide whether it might be more or less reasonable to consider the existence of God more deeply.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The rich man is being purified before he can “enter” the Kingdom of God. Everyone before entering heaven must be purified either here on earth or in purgatory. I believe that is the Catholic teaching.

That certainly sounds hopeful, but why then might the rich man have been so agitated in his need to warn his brothers? Why also might Jesus have admonished that such a warning would have proven futile?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You’re question made me wonder -

In the first instance, who coined the term ‘religion?’

In the second, Jesus established a church. What is a ‘church?’ Is it a building, a set of beliefs, or a visible hierarchy? When did the church Jesus established come to be described as a ‘religion’?

There are many religions in the world, and one does have to question who benefits from these religions? Following a religion to gain the approval of those who control them, and maintain their prestige and position renders it unnecessary, as the ‘follower’ derives little in the way of spiritual benefit.

There are people who truly seek God, and try to live their lives in accordance with God, but choose not to affiliate with a particular religion. It is often the case this is due to a bad experience with organized religion. I read a book called ‘Crises of Conscience’ that was written by someone who was expelled from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He lost his faith in organized religion, but never lost his faith in God, and after his expulsion continued to believe in God and live as best he could by the bible. So, in answer to you’re question, no religion is possible for those who truly seek God, and God does not cast a person off because they don’t belong to one.

However, God is not solely an individual experience. While God does commune with us as individuals, He also communes with us collectively, and faith is something that is lived not just in addition to the lives of individuals, but in the lives of communities. Humans are naturally drawn to and associate with like-minded people with whom they share common interests and values. Therefore, it’s not a case of religion being necessary, as in ‘must to,’ but rather a natural product, and we experience greater fulfillment when faith is shared rather than lived out in isolation.

This seems reasonable.

Perhaps the act of worship of many together might also lend confidence to the one that his/her beliefs have a communal acceptance…something of a communal affirmation.

 

[minkymurph]

This is sensible, but why would a sketchy, quasi-historical, largely mythical collection of odd tales be considered Holy? Why might it be considered a closed cannon if none of the information is particularly trustworthy anyway? Why would churches not be reading from the latest modern-day authors instead of harkening back, week after week, to the blurry thoughts of nomads thousands of years removed?

I think we’ve been here before and exhausted the topic.

Further, how might a god of such vague and meandering communication skills be so very keen to judge mankind in such an apparently precise and final way?

Given the final judgment has not happened for thousands of years, I don’t think it can be said God is keen to do it.

As we’re on the topic of a search for truth, a lot of questions you ask seem rhetorical. Are they, or do you actually want someone to answer them?

Finally, given your insight into this matter is fairly astute, why might God, in full knowledge that his words and actions might be being considered literally true in the Bible, be content to ignore the consequences? How is one to believe in a personal god who offers no personal contact or guidance–even insofar as his very words are allegedly concerned?

God doesn’t ignore the consequences - He just doesn’t wade in all guns blazing when genuine, well meaning people make mistakes. What way would that be to offer correction or guidance? I see the action of God as a guiding hand as opposed to a sledgehammer. The very fact that we now know as much as we do about scripture and different approaches have developed is perhaps an indication God is not ignoring the consequences.

Most people with a deep believe would say at some point of their lives, they have encountered God and have been touched by Him. Such experiences are deeply spiritual, and deeply moving. Catholics also believe in Real Presence which is personal contact.

I would say we have an abundance of guidance. The bible is a book of guidance. The Holy Spirit is a guide, and God calls people to guide. If one wants to hear God speak and understand, one needs to listen. Guidance is an interesting thing. It is very often something we don’t want to hear, even though our common sense or better judgment prompts us to listen to it.

 

[Cath4Romney]

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?

You are looking at it the wrong way. Heaven is being in union with God: Hell is seperation from God. People have the right to choose whether to accept or reject God. In fact, the only thing a truly loving God COULD do is give us the right to choose; the only other option would be to create obedient robots.

 

[Imcatholic7]

What of those who have heard, but do not believe?

Then that will be an action they must be judged by. Why are you so concerned about something/a place you don’t even “logically” believe in?

 

[Imcatholic7]

If one is not able to logically reconstruct what God may or may not do, how is one able to live a life that might be allegedly pleasing to such an entity? Is it not certain that in the past mankind thought it might be pleasing to God to burn heretics? How is one to understand what path to tread with a laisez-faire attitude towards the divine?

That doesn’t mean we know how or what God thinks/ judges by. We know where he sets the bar but not how he’ll go around judging.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Then that will be an action they must be judged by. Why are you so concerned about something/a place you don’t even “logically” believe in?

Because such beliefs are held as true by the majority of the people we live with, and it is good to know why someone thinks the way they do. A full understanding of someone’s beliefs and thought processes makes it easier to live with them in a society like ours. Especially when so many wish to base their votes on laws (such laws do affect me) on their beliefs that I may or may not share.

Though I am not the person to who you addressed the question I hope the answer I provided will help you understand.

 

[je333]

That’s something I couldn’t claim.

I rest my case.

No, it’s not a place. I would see the Kingdom of God as many things.

I rest my case.

 

[minkymurph]

This seems reasonable.

Perhaps the act of worship of many together might also lend confidence to the one that his/her beliefs have a communal acceptance…something of a communal affirmation.

There is this aspect of it. There are individuals who could be described as a bit quirky or eccentric - not that there’s anything wrong with that - and such people aren’t that interested in the approval of others and communal acceptance. They don’t mind standing out from the crowd, are happy with their own company. Others are more conservative, and communal acceptance and adhering to social ‘norms’ is important to them. In my view, such people ‘balance’ each other in society, and wouldn’t it be a boring world if we were all the same. :yawn:

Generally speaking, communal acceptance, a sense of identity and ‘belonging,’ is an environment in which humans thrive best. That is the true purpose of living our faith, fulfillment of life, of which God is a part. The ultimate fulfillment is life in Heaven, but the purpose of faith is also about fulfillment in life now. So, it is an important aspect.

However, over-estimating communal acceptance leads to a life that lacks fulfillment. There is a time to toe the party line, and there is a time not to, and stand up for your principles. Not because you believe you are ‘right,’ (I actually hate that word and think it should be removed from the English dictionary) but out of a deep conviction those principles are just and true. This is why I mentioned the book ‘Crises of Conscience’ to you. It takes courage to stand by what one believes in the face of open hostility and ultimately, outright rejection of you as a person. That is what people of faith do, and one would have to question why given that going with the flow is the easier option.