Go to Hell - Stay there forever

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously, you attribute all this nonsense to Catholics. Did you learn one actual thing about the faith before you just abandoned it wholesale?
What nonsense?

If you are really interested, my enlightenment is somewhat simliar to Drew’s in this video:

If you take out the Fundamentalist aspects and replace with Catholicism and replace the bit about essential oils with the church’s teaching on homosexuality, birth control, and the intervention of prayer.

Then when I began to study Christianity historical, it basically all fell apart. I then began listening to debates on the issues and found myself always understanding the opposition to Christianity and found the claims to be empty.
 
Nevertheless, as someone who feels compelled to respect Jesus’ own teachings, I have to admit that hell is at least a possibility.
You’re with Von Balthasar on this. And I agree. Early in his book, he writes, “It is generally known that, in the New Testament, two series of statements run along side by side in such a way that a synthesis of both is neither permissible nor achievable: the first series speaks of being lost for all eternity; the second, of God’s will, and ability, to save all men,” Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell," p. 18.
 
What nonsense?
I believe one of the biggest misconceptions of the religious side is that all of those on the other side are bad people, who are selfish and have no respect for others.
A person is completely justified, I would argue morally appropriate to be angry and hateful of suffering.
(here implying that I claimed we believed we shouldn’t hate suffering)

Just to name a couple.
homosexuality, birth control, and the intervention of prayer.
Sounds about par for the course. If people are going to reject the truth it’s generally because of issues of sexual morality. The prayer one’s a little different though, I’ll give you that.
Then when I began to study Christianity historical, it basically all fell apart. I then began listening to debates on the issues and found myself always understanding the opposition to Christianity and found the claims to be empty.
That’s funny, because studying history is usually something people cite for coming into the Church. Which debates did you listen to?
 
That’s funny, because studying history is usually something people cite for coming into the Church.
I had no intentions of leaving. I have changed little in my actions, except a few things. I obviously do not attend mass anymore, after never missing one in 38 years.
Which debates did you listen to?
Most of Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, all the ones you would expect. Definitely plenty of other lessen known ones also.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but against whom? There are people who are competent to debate, and those who aren’t/ Did any of them actually debate a competent Catholic theologian, or did they turn their attentions towards fundamentalists?
 
It is generally known that, in the New Testament, two series of statements run along side by side in such a way that a synthesis of both is neither permissible nor achievable: the first series speaks of being lost for all eternity; the second, of God’s will, and ability, to save all men,” Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell, " p. 18.
Those things aren’t at odds such that synthesis is impossible.

God’s active will is to save all people, but His permissive will allows people to go against Him and go to Hell eternally.

This problem only exists if you treat God’s active and passive wills as the same thing.
 
I appreciate that, but Balthasar does not have in mind here the tension between the divine and human will. What he’s talking about is the tension between God very clearly desiring to save all and Christ having died for all on the one hand, and the threats of eternal separation from him on the other hand. Those are the two things that are apparently irreconcilable in the Scriptures. At least, that’s what he’s talking about in this passage.
 
I appreciate that, but Balthasar does not have in mind here the tension between the divine and human will.
I’m not talking about the divine and human wills. I am speaking of God’s Active will, and God’s Passive will. Are you unfamiliar with these concepts. (genuinely asking, as it’s an important bit of information in this debate).

As for the rest of your post:

God is both infinitely merciful, and infinitely just. (Both mercy and justice being qualities of Good, of which God is the perfection.)

God’s mercy allows us sinners to be saved from the necessary requirements of His justice . (The punishment due each of us for our sins.) However, if a person is unwilling to accept the grace of His mercy, then they will become subject to the full extent of His judgement.

The two things are not at odds with one another. It is just that a man receive what He is due for his actions. There is nothing evil in that. Since what is due for our action is separation from God (given that that is what the choice of sin represents), it is just that a damned soul receive that separation. Since the source of all that is Good is God, the nature of the decision to be separated from God entrails a similar separation from all that is Good. Hence, Hell is a terrible place of suffering.

Christ died for all, it was a gift given freely for the salvation of humanity. But as with any gift, we must accept it in order to benefit from it.
 
Last edited:
I think most of us do accept it, lets get back to my scenario of the priest who sins sexually, he had sex with a woman, went to confession after, then met the woman again and had sex with her and died instantly after doing so. You will probably say that the priest will deserve to go to Hell as he knew he was sinning mortally. I will say that God should forgive him as the priest still desired his forgiveness.
 
I think most of us do accept it, lets get back to my scenario of the priest who sins sexually, he had sex with a woman, went to confession after, then met the woman again and had sex with her and died instantly after doing so. You will probably say that the priest will deserve to go to Hell as he knew he was sinning mortally. I will say that God should forgive him as the priest still desired his forgiveness.
I think that the Priest should have asked for a transfer after the second time they had sex or at least been more careful.
 
Yes, but against whom? There are people who are competent to debate, and those who aren’t/ Did any of them actually debate a competent Catholic theologian, or did they turn their attentions towards fundamentalists?
James White, Dinesh D’Souza, Mike Licona, Michael Bird, Craig Evans, Michael Brown, Kyle, Butt, William Lane Craig, Al Sharpton, Peter Hitchens, many others.
 
I think most of us do accept it, lets get back to my scenario of the priest who sins sexually, he had sex with a woman, went to confession after, then met the woman again and had sex with her and died instantly after doing so. You will probably say that the priest will deserve to go to Hell as he knew he was sinning mortally. I will say that God should forgive him as the priest still desired his forgiveness.
Each mortal sin is a distinct act which requires forgiveness. I’m sorry, but yes, that warrants Hell. It is a choice made knowingly against God.

Certainly, there is room to discuss whether he was actively engaging his will or not (a requirement for mortal sin), but from the perspective of someone who cannot know that, all we can do is judge the action as it is presented to us.
 
It warrants Hell I agree but there is the mercy of God. Look at St Augustine, he lived a life like the priest in my scenario, he could have gone to Hell but he did not, why? because of Gods mercy.
 
James White, Dinesh D’Souza, Mike Licona, Michael Bird, Craig Evans, Michael Brown, Kyle, Butt, William Lane Craig, Al Sharpton, Peter Hitchens, many others.
Yup. not a Catholic theologian in the bunch.

They won’t debate Catholic theologians because Catholics aren’t limited by fundamentalist notions about the Bible. Most of their arguments only hold up against a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, and so they will only engage with people they know they can make look foolish.

It was either Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin who said they have extended an invitation to Dawkins many times, and have never gotten a response back.
It warrants Hell I agree but there is the mercy of God. Look at St Augustine, he lived a life like the priest in my scenario, he could have gone to Hell but he did not, why? because of Gods mercy.
(You should try to quote the post you’re responding to, it makes it easier for people to keep track ^^)

You’re right, Augustine lived an objectively-sinful early life. However, the difference is that he repented and rejected his sinful ways. The priest in your example didn’t, at least not fully. Had Augustine died young, I agree, he probably would have been damned. He says as much in his Confessions. Thank God that didn’t happen.

You’re also right that it is God’s mercy that gives any of us the time or call to repent. I wouldn’t even think of denying that. But we do not know how much time we are to be given, we don’t know when we may be called home. That is why we must always repent after we sin, and seek absolution as soon as possible.

I will also say that it’s entirely possible that your priest repented as he was dying, and that in His mercy God accepted this repentance and forgave the priest. The thing is, we can’t know that. What we know is that mortal sin brings about damnation, and the only normal means of being forgiven for a mortal sin is confession. To rely on anything else simply because it might work is foolhardy.
 
Last edited:
They won’t debate Catholic theologians because Catholics aren’t limited by fundamentalist notions about the Bible. Most of their arguments only hold up against a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, and so they will only engage with people they know they can make look foolish.
I highly doubt that, the individuals I mentioned are not short on confidence. I know I watched a few Catholic ones. I’ll find the names of the individuals that were in the debates.

Dawkins may be the weakest debater of the bunch, or at least my least favorite to listen to of the ones I mentioned. The debates are good, but of course all take about the same course. When the religious-defending debater encounters a problem, they normally result to an unfalsifiable claim, which is essentially a debate-killer.
 
I highly doubt that, the individuals I mentioned are not short on confidence.
Confidence is not indicative of knowledge, capacity, or correctness. I know plenty of confident people who don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about. Nor does confidence require someone to seek out an actual fair fight. Bullies are confident, or at least they think they are.
 
Last edited:
Confidence is not indicative of knowledge, capacity, or correctness. I know plenty of confident people who don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about. Nor does confidence require someone to seek out an actual fair fight. Bullies are confident, or at least they think they are.
Hitchens was probably known as the greatest debater of all time. Most found him fair, even when they disagreed with him. I would say that about the others as well. I find most of the religious to be very dishonest, when considering an idea that may be contrary to their faith. Once you are willing to discard evidence or lack-there-of, just to try to hold on to your idea, then you have failed to be honest to the debate or yourself.

Are Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin considered the top Catholic debaters?
 
Hitchens was probably known as the greatest debater of all time.
I’ve never listened to one of his debates, so I can’t comment on this. I’m sure many atheists debaters are fair in their debates, it jut seems to me that they pick combatants whose beliefs they can easily dismantle. Believe me, I agree, most fundamentalists are pretty easy to pick apart, even for a layman. The debates I have watched, I’d agree with you. The fundamentalists talk in circles, and ignore very obvious problems with their arguments. I watched a debate between Trent Horn and James White, and frankly, White was downright painful to listen to…
Are Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin considered the top Catholic debaters?
I honestly don’t watch that many debates, but I am fond of Trent Horn’s style. He has a number of debates with both atheists and Christians of other denominations. I’ve never watched one of Jimmy Akin’s debates, and the only one I could find online was, comically enough, also against James White. It was probably Trent Horn that I heard speaking of offering an invite.
 
I honestly don’t watch that many debates, but I am fond of Trent Horn’s style. He has a number of debates with both atheists and Christians of other denominations. I’ve never watched one of Jimmy Akin’s debates, and the only one I could find online was, comically enough, also against James White. It was probably Trent Horn that I heard speaking of offering an invite.
I just quickly read this review How Jesus Became God: A Critical Review | Catholic Answers of Trent Horn reviewing one of Bart Ehrman’s books. Trent does come off as smart and fair in this review, athough I did disagree with a few things right away. However, I would really be interested in hearing him debate with Bart. I think they would at least be able to have a civil conversion, while having disagreements, which is what it should be about.

Oh, and yeah, James White is brutal…and so arrogant.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top