Having a problem believing in Hell

[PAboy57]

It is a pretty good explanation. Without intending to pick a “fight” about it, there is something I wish to address. In both parables the persons who are asked for help are “reluctant” to give it. They both need several “proddings” before they are willing to help. Is this a proper description of God? Does God just play hard to catch?

Hi Spock,

When I read Church teaching, the fuller response/explanation, regarding prayer I believe another message unfolds.

1. God, our Heavenly Father, loves us so much more than the evil judge that He will provide us more blessings and what we truly need. Sometimes we don’t recognize the immeditate blessing/gift from God but it eventually works out over time. And that could be the difference between on entering Heaven of hell (whether they believe it or not). Want to make sure we remain on topic
2. We should be persistent in prayer and not only pray when we need something. We should also pray thanking God for our daily blessings and gifts. Of course that is when we can’t resist and also slip in our needs. God knows our needs better than we do. What we do is establish a consistent prayer life
3. We should practice the virtue of Charity and pray for others so they may receive the blessings of God also. That is why you have so many CAF members praying for you and others. We have many asking us to pray for them and we slip in those not asking .

Many of us struggle and sometimes think God isn’t listening but He truly hears and answers each prayer. No is also considered a valid answer even if we struggle with that one. My personal opinion is that some of these discussions are a form of prayer because we offer up everything we do for the Glory of God and to help the holy souls in Purgatory.

Take care Spock.

 

[Betterave]

I understand that that position makes sense as a pure outsider to religion. But no one is a pure outsider. My contention, which I invite you to consider, is that you are necessarily deceiving yourself insofar as you think of yourself in this way, as -]somehow/-] someone who is detached or divorced from what is at stake in the real disagreements between religions.

correction: “someone” - not “somehow”

 

[Spock]

Well supposing He exists, what do you think?

Hmmm, I would have appreciated your answer first and then asking me back. But I will answer anyhow: “I have no idea”. I cannot fathom any good reason for God to play “hide and seek” or play “hard to catch”. Here is the reason it:

Suppose:

1. God exists and he loves us.
2. Love here means that God acts in our best interest.
3. It is in our best interest to be with God, having that beatific vision. Every other “fate” is inferior.
4. That beatific vision is so magnificent that it will “overpower” us, it will unite us with God. Our “sinful” nature will be wiped away, there will be no need to have free will any more, our will always be aligned with God’s will.

I hope, so far we agree. If you agree we can go on. If you disagree, please point out my mistakes.

That may be a very apt joke, worth thinking about, both as it applies to God and as it applies to you.

Seriously, erotic tension can be a good and even holy thing (it can obviously also be purely animalistic - though we believe that the animal side too is God’s creation and can constitute a certain dim image of the divine nature).

Please explain, how does it apply to me. According to my best knowledge, there is no rooster in the yard, and when I am running around, I just do my morning exercise.

 

[Spock]

When I read Church teaching, the fuller response/explanation, regarding prayer I believe another message unfolds.

1. God, our Heavenly Father, loves us so much more than the evil judge that He will provide us more blessings and what we truly need. Sometimes we don’t recognize the immeditate blessing/gift from God but it eventually works out over time. And that could be the difference between on entering Heaven of hell (whether they believe it or not). Want to make sure we remain on topic
2. We should be persistent in prayer and not only pray when we need something. We should also pray thanking God for our daily blessings and gifts. Of course that is when we can’t resist and also slip in our needs. God knows our needs better than we do. What we do is establish a consistent prayer life
3. We should practice the virtue of Charity and pray for others so they may receive the blessings of God also. That is why you have so many CAF members praying for you and others. We have many asking us to pray for them and we slip in those not asking .

Many of us struggle and sometimes think God isn’t listening but He truly hears and answers each prayer. No is also considered a valid answer even if we struggle with that one. My personal opinion is that some of these discussions are a form of prayer because we offer up everything we do for the Glory of God and to help the holy souls in Purgatory.

This is all very kind and touching, especially your prayers on my behalf. But it still sounds like “nagging”.

The church says that God is immutable and is omniscient. Therefore whether we pray for something or not does not make the slightest difference for God (coming from immutability), and also he already knows what are you going to pray about (omniscience). So these supplicative prayers cannot achieve anything what God does not want to do anyhow. You may say that the prayers will change you - the one who prays, which is fine. But that does not need to be a supplicative prayer, it can be a meditative prayer.

 

[Betterave]

Hmmm, I would have appreciated your answer first and then asking me back.

Sure, maybe. But that’s not how the game works. It’s not clear why the hen runs away (it probably isn’t really the reason given in the joke ), but she does. She wants to make sure the rooster is fit, perhaps? Is it possible that there is some value in doing something to earn a reward, rather than just being given it? Possibly the value of the reward more clearly comes to light, when there is some foreplay? (There is something here of the Platonic/enlightenment ideal of thinking the same as others (because it is true), but still, thinking it for oneself, not just repeating hearsay.)

But I will answer anyhow: “I have no idea”. I cannot fathom any good reason for God to play “hide and seek” or play “hard to catch”. Here is the reason it:

Suppose:

1. God exists and he loves us.
2. Love here means that God acts in our best interest.
3. It is in our best interest to be with God, having that beatific vision. Every other “fate” is inferior.
4. That beatific vision is so magnificent that it will “overpower” us, it will unite us with God. Our “sinful” nature will be wiped away, there will be no need to have free will any more, our will always be aligned with God’s will.

I hope, so far we agree. If you agree we can go on. If you disagree, please point out my mistakes.

On 3): it’s not a mistake, but perhaps an over-simplification. “Inferior” is a relative term; we must say it in respect of something. You assume, it seems, that experiencing the beatific vision is something which is absolutely superior, whereas you have neglected the possibility that rather than this purely general, passive notion of having something dumped into your lap (having that hen just hold still), a beatific vision which is conditional upon an appropriate amount and kind of foreplay is in fact better (and not just better for us, as purely *passive *recipients, but better for us as we really are, as active participants, i.e., as real lovers).

(There is a real mistake in 4: free will is not destroyed by becoming perfectly good; it is perfected. It is sin which burdens, binds, and destroys free will.)

Please explain, how does it apply to me. According to my best knowledge, there is no rooster in the yard, and when I am running around, I just do my morning exercise.

I hope this doesn’t make you uncomfortable, but I’m a rooster (remember: IF God exists, then CAF posters you talk to may be God’s way of showing his care for you, God’s instruments), and you only *think *that’s morning exercise.

 

[Spock]

Sure, maybe. But that’s not how the game works. It’s not clear why the hen runs away (it probably isn’t really the reason given in the joke ), but she does.

Well, no, I cannot agree here. The joke is what it is. It is an arbitrary construct, and it “validity” cannot be subject to a dispute, just like it cannot be questioned if the rules of chess (for example) are “good” rules or not. The joke is either funny, or not, but its wording cannot be changed. The joke is either approprite for the question asked, or not. If you say that the joke does not apply, so be it.

On 3): it’s not a mistake, but perhaps an over-simplification. “Inferior” is a relative term; we must say it in respect of something. You assume, it seems, that experiencing the beatific vision is something which is absolutely superior, whereas you have neglected the possibility that rather than this purely general, passive notion of having something dumped into your lap (having that hen just hold still), a beatific vision which is conditional upon an appropriate amount and kind of foreplay is in fact better (and not just better for us, as purely *passive *recipients, but better for us as we really are, as active participants, i.e., as real lovers).

This is acceptable, though I have no information which would say that there can be “levels” of the beatific vision. Let’s be honest, none of us has. It is pure speculation. But I would venture to say say that even the “lowest level” of heaven is “superior” to “best level” in hell.

(There is a real mistake in 4: free will is not destroyed by becoming perfectly good; it is perfected. It is sin which burdens, binds, and destroys free will.)

Fine. I did not say that free will is “destroyed”. I said that it will be aligned with God’s will. So I am not sure what the error was. But it is cool. The funny thing is that there will be no “sin” in heaven, and there will be “free will” in heaven. This obviously proves that in order to have free will the existence of “evil” or “sin” is not necessary.

I hope this doesn’t make you uncomfortable, but I’m a rooster (remember: IF God exists, then CAF posters you talk to may be God’s way of showing his care for you, God’s instruments), and you only *think *that’s morning exercise.

No, it does not make me feel uncomfortable. But I will reverse what you say: “Even if there is God, it is possible that you only think you are a rooster, doing God’s work, showing God’s care for me”. We have two contrasting “maybe-s” and two contrasting “possible-s”. How can it be resolved? From my perspective (only mine) God already knows me better than I can (or you can - no disrespect intended). It is possible that the (name removed by moderator)ut I recieve from the posters around here will be “enough” to change my mind. I find it highly unlikely, but it is possible. But there is one thing that is certain: God’s acceptance of my standing invitation would be the best way to convince me. It simply cannot fail. So why does God not choose the “best” way? The question is still open.

 

[vsedriver]

Maybe. That is why I am asking. Some of you might be a “chosen one”.

I cannot choose to become a “chosen one”. That is something only God can do. If he chooses not to make me a “chosen one”, then I am SOL (sorry, I am not allowed to spell out the abbreviation).

But that’s exactly the point. You can choose! God’s knowing whether or not you choose Him is not the same as Him causing you to be chosen.

God is a loving Father who asks you to accept His love and when you truly love you give love back to Him.

You keep saying the ball is in God’s court but the truth is that the ball is in your court.

 

[Betterave]

Well, no, I cannot agree here. The joke is what it is. It is an arbitrary construct, and it “validity” cannot be subject to a dispute, just like it cannot be questioned if the rules of chess (for example) are “good” rules or not. The joke is either funny, or not, but its wording cannot be changed. The joke is either approprite for the question asked, or not. If you say that the joke does not apply, so be it.

I don’t follow. The joke is a metaphor, like a parable. It isn’t just “what it is” (not here, anyway); it is a means for stimulating a search for meaning. As for its “validity,” I don’t know what you mean. As Homer Simpson once said: “It’s funny because it’s true.” Now whether or not a joke is funny because it’s true, there has to be some truth, some connection to reality, if it is to even make sense… it can’t be a purely arbitrary construct: that wouldn’t be funny.

This is acceptable, though I have no information which would say that there can be “levels” of the beatific vision. Let’s be honest, none of us has. It is pure speculation. But I would venture to say say that even the “lowest level” of heaven is “superior” to “best level” in hell.

I wasn’t referring to different levels for different individuals. I was talking about the general nature of the beatific vision in relation to an ‘optimal’ specification of the general preconditions (process of courtship) for attaining it. Given that the beatific vision is about a love relationship, we can at least dimly grasp something about it by comparing it to what we understand about human love relationships (or even chicken ‘love’ relationships).

Fine. I did not say that free will is “destroyed”. I said that it will be aligned with God’s will. So I am not sure what the error was. But it is cool. The funny thing is that there will be no “sin” in heaven, and there will be “free will” in heaven. This obviously proves that in order to have free will the existence of “evil” or “sin” is not necessary.

You’re right on the last point. I may have misinterpreted your claim that “there will be no need to have free will anymore”; sorry about that. Still, your claim is clearly false. The beatific vision is about love, and nothing is more essential and necessary to love than free will.

No, it does not make me feel uncomfortable. But I will reverse what you say: “Even if there is God, it is possible that you only think you are a rooster, doing God’s work, showing God’s care for me”. We have two contrasting “maybe-s” and two contrasting “possible-s”. [Agreed.] How can it be resolved? From my perspective (only mine) God already knows me better than I can (or you can - no disrespect intended). It is possible that the (name removed by moderator)ut I recieve from the posters around here will be “enough” to change my mind. I find it highly unlikely, but it is possible. But there is one thing that is certain: God’s acceptance of my standing invitation would be the best way to convince me. It simply cannot fail. So why does God not choose the “best” way? The question is still open.

As long as the question is still open, this indicates that the invitation is still open. And if the invitation is still open, God may well take up that invitation some day. (Maybe on your next deathbed experience - it might even be the real one - God will reward your persistent searching here by revealing himself to you.) If He doesn’t take up the invitation, then a) He doesn’t exist, b) He is not who we believe him to be, or c) there is something unreasonable (impertinent, perhaps) about your invitation .

If a) or b) is right, then we’ll likely never know that (it seems to me).

If c) is right, then God may have to teach you that himself, directly, or you may come to realize it as you discuss and reflect on the problem further.

 

[PAboy57]

This is all very kind and touching, especially your prayers on my behalf. But it still sounds like “nagging”.

The church says that God is immutable and is omniscient. Therefore whether we pray for something or not does not make the slightest difference for God (coming from immutability), and also he already knows what are you going to pray about (omniscience). So these supplicative prayers cannot achieve anything what God does not want to do anyhow. You may say that the prayers will change you - the one who prays, which is fine. But that does not need to be a supplicative prayer, it can be a meditative prayer.

Supplicative/Meditative prayer does much according to our faith. You just fail to believe. I remember Abraham negotiating with God concerning the number of good people to be found in Sodom.

No nagging, let’s call it relationship building:

Without prayer we cannot resist temptation, nor obtain God’s grace, nor grow and persevere in it. This necessity is incumbent on all according to their different states in life.

The obligation to pray is incumbent on us at all times, not that prayer should be our sole occupation,. The texts of Scripture bidding us to pray without ceasing mean that we must pray whenever it is necessary, as it so frequently is necessary; that we must continue to pray until we shall have obtained what we need.

So we continue to pray earning treasure in heaven. You may try it someday.

 

[rturner76]

I’m not sure if I have been keeping up on the posts but based on one thing I heard in the last one I disagree on one point

If I may: You must pray in order to receive grace?

Here is the definition of grace as I understand it: The freely given, unmerited favor and love of god

It is my belief the grace is received by the blood of Jesus and NOT by our actions. If we could rely upon our own actions to secure our place in heaven there would be no need of a savior no? My understanding is our sins can never be forgiven without the grace of God given by the blood of the lamb.

Am I way off here? I am so church or biblical scholar but do I understand the word grace differently than the church? DO you earn grace or is it freely given. I believe you can ask for forgiveness but forgiveness is not quite the same thing as GRACE. Grace implies to me an unmerited forgivrness. Not asked for, not earned, but freely given by a savior who came to save the world, not condemn it.

 

[Spock]

I don’t follow. The joke is a metaphor, like a parable. It isn’t just “what it is” (not here, anyway); it is a means for stimulating a search for meaning. As for its “validity,” I don’t know what you mean. As Homer Simpson once said: “It’s funny because it’s true.” Now whether or not a joke is funny because it’s true, there has to be some truth, some connection to reality, if it is to even make sense… it can’t be a purely arbitrary construct: that wouldn’t be funny.

You are right. In this sense, taken as a parable or a thought experiment, it is subject to modifications.

You’re right on the last point. I may have misinterpreted your claim that “there will be no need to have free will anymore”; sorry about that. Still, your claim is clearly false. The beatific vision is about love, and nothing is more essential and necessary to love than free will.

I don’t know about that. This should be explored. The word “love” has so many meanings, that it would be helpful to take time and pin it down. Specifically what does it mean “God loves us”, and “we love God”? The two instances of “love” are clearly different. Until we clarify what “love” means, we cannot evaluate your claim that free will is essential to love.

As long as the question is still open, this indicates that the invitation is still open.

Sure, but there is more to it. Even if there would be a sensible answer to the question, the invitation would still be open. Naturally, an answer by some apologist would not be as prefectly convincing as a direct visit, but at least it might show that there is a chance that there is a God, and that God is like the one described by Christianity.

And if the invitation is still open, God may well take up that invitation some day. (Maybe on your next deathbed experience - it might even be the real one - God will reward your persistent searching here by revealing himself to you.) If He doesn’t take up the invitation, then a) He doesn’t exist, b) He is not who we believe him to be, or c) there is something unreasonable (impertinent, perhaps) about your invitation .

If a) or b) is right, then we’ll likely never know that (it seems to me).

If c) is right, then God may have to teach you that himself, directly, or you may come to realize it as you discuss and reflect on the problem further.

Indeed. I think it is either a) or b). But I keep open to the possibility of c).

 

[Betterave]

I don’t know about that. This should be explored. The word “love” has so many meanings, that it would be helpful to take time and pin it down. Specifically what does it mean “God loves us”, and “we love God”? The two instances of “love” are clearly different. Until we clarify what “love” means, we cannot evaluate your claim that free will is essential to love.

I just mean that in this context and according to the Catholic understanding, love is necessarily the act of a subject with free will. Free will is the faculty which makes love possible. Love in this case is a particular kind of voluntary movement towards the other insofar as the other is apprehended as worthy of love. Insofar as this apprehension is true, the will is properly said to love freely: “the truth will set you free” - we freely love only that which we truly know (and of course there are degrees here - we may know more or less and we may be more or less free in the movements of our wills). I’m no theologian, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s supposed to work, and I think it makes good sense.

Sure, but there is more to it. Even if there would be a sensible answer to the question, the invitation would still be open. Naturally, an answer by some apologist would not be as prefectly convincing as a direct visit, but at least it might show that there is a chance that there is a God, and that God is like the one described by Christianity.

Agreed.

Indeed. I think it is either a) or b). But I keep open to the possibility of c).

I think that’s all a reasonable person could ask for.

 

[Betterave]

I’m not sure if I have been keeping up on the posts but based on one thing I heard in the last one I disagree on one point

If I may: You must pray in order to receive grace?

Here is the definition of grace as I understand it: The freely given, unmerited favor and love of god

It is my belief the grace is received by the blood of Jesus and NOT by our actions. If we could rely upon our own actions to secure our place in heaven there would be no need of a savior no? My understanding is our sins can never be forgiven without the grace of God given by the blood of the lamb.

Am I way off here? I am so church or biblical scholar but do I understand the word grace differently than the church? DO you earn grace or is it freely given. I believe you can ask for forgiveness but forgiveness is not quite the same thing as GRACE. Grace implies to me an unmerited forgivrness. Not asked for, not earned, but freely given by a savior who came to save the world, not condemn it.

Hi, welcome.

I’d say we believe that grace *is *freely given, *without *our actions earning it, but *also *that it is freely given in accordance with our grace-filled actions. Grace builds on grace.

 

[kk23wong]

You do not have to believe in hell if you realize what to be called reality.

i. Around 24,000 under five deaths each day (SOWC)
ii. Average 300,000 teen girls (aged 11-17) lured to become prostitutes in the US each year
iii. Uncountable number of “mental illnesses” around the world

Heaven is nowhere else, but the manipulation from the God is pushing us into the hell.
The glorious images created by religions cannot hide her wrongdoings (the reality mentioned in above). The morality of the God is being reflected by every piece of news and pages in history books since we are indivisible.

“Original Sins” does not exist. It is only an excuse for her manipulations. Everyone was born to be. We are innocent. Things changed us. In fact, the God enforce her will on us. Those who refused to compromise go mad. In the whole, the God is hypocritical.

Truth is something we can see. Look at the statistics above. Every planet is a single world and all lives end with it. This manipulator has to pay her live as the cost for her wrongdoings. However, this attempt is no different from murdering us. If human lives are the same as poultries, the God has already trashed our civilizations.

Teru Wong

 

[crazzeto]

You do not have to believe in hell if you realize what to be called reality.

i. Around 24,000 under five deaths each day (SOWC)
ii. Average 300,000 teen girls (aged 11-17) lured to become prostitutes in the US each year
iii. Uncountable number of “mental illnesses” around the world

Heaven is nowhere else, but the manipulation from the God is pushing us into the hell.
The glorious images created by religions cannot hide her wrongdoings (the reality mentioned in above). The morality of the God is being reflected by every piece of news and pages in history books since we are indivisible.

“Original Sins” does not exist. It is only an excuse for her manipulations. Everyone was born to be. We are innocent. Things changed us. In fact, the God enforce her will on us. Those who refused to compromise go mad. In the whole, the God is hypocritical.

Truth is something we can see. Look at the statistics above. Every planet is a single world and all lives end with it. This manipulator has to pay her live as the cost for her wrongdoings. However, this attempt is no different from murdering us. If human lives are the same as poultries, the God has already trashed our civilizations.

Teru Wong

Where did you get this garbage?

 

[Spock]

I just mean that in this context and according to the Catholic understanding, love is necessarily the act of a subject with free will. Free will is the faculty which makes love possible. Love in this case is a particular kind of voluntary movement towards the other insofar as the other is apprehended as worthy of love. Insofar as this apprehension is true, the will is properly said to love freely: “the truth will set you free” - we freely love only that which we truly know (and of course there are degrees here - we may know more or less and we may be more or less free in the movements of our wills). I’m no theologian, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s supposed to work, and I think it makes good sense.

Actually, it does make sense according to the definition of love as you presented it. Now, how does it translate into specifics? I honestly do not know anything about God, from my own experience. I heard lots of things about God, partially from my youth, when I was still a believer, and partially from the posts around here, and partially from some other sources. Honestly again, I see a lots of things which I find nonsensical, and also a lot of things which I find contradictory, and also a lot of things which are contradicted by reality - as I perceive reality (which is subject to criticism).

The final conclusion is that I do not believe that God exists. Now, how can I make a voluntary move “toward God”, since I do not believe in his existence? Even if I would tentatively ponder that maybe God exists, what I heard about God, and what I see in reality does not strike me as “worthy” to love, or “worthy to move toward to”.

Agreed.

I think that’s all a reasonable person could ask for.

I raise a glass for a toast in the honor of agreement.

 

[mark_avery]

I understand that in the bible there is a place where it stipulates some can not understand.
If i were in such a position,gaining insight or understanding leading to hopefully belief would take "1"a want(heartfelt) "2"much persistence (Quote again from bible;some take it with force)
For even those with belief, sometimes have also only hope as a refuge.
The bible also announces "To find god is very difficult"you must give your all,with or without belief.

 

[Betterave]

Actually, it does make sense according to the definition of love as you presented it. Now, how does it translate into specifics? I honestly do not know anything about God, from my own experience. I heard lots of things about God, partially from my youth, when I was still a believer, and partially from the posts around here, and partially from some other sources. Honestly again, I see a lots of things which I find nonsensical, and also a lot of things which I find contradictory, and also a lot of things which are contradicted by reality - as I perceive reality (which is subject to criticism).

The final conclusion is that I do not believe that God exists. Now, how can I make a voluntary move “toward God”, since I do not believe in his existence? Even if I would tentatively ponder that maybe God exists, what I heard about God, and what I see in reality does not strike me as “worthy” to love, or “worthy to move toward to”.

Ye pose a not-so-easy question here ; I’ll have to think about how to answer it.

 

[Spock]

Ye pose a not-so-easy question here ; I’ll have to think about how to answer it.

I will come back in about 4 days. Take your time.

 

[kk23wong]

Where did you get this garbage?

**The above statistics have revealed the wrongdoings of the God. **They are not craps.

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

The God created an illusionary world. For instance, the desertification has removed landmasses and resulted in global food crisis since 2008. 925 million people are living in chronic hunger now. All methods against desertification are experimental. It is equivalent to the aging of this planet, which is a supreme being without violating any natural rules. At the same time, the distances between each living planet keep our natural role as the life cycles of this planet. It makes space migration impossible. Our world is not a never-ending quest. The God intended to hide the truth (Lives in Different Levels) because death is an inevitable cost for every living thing.

The evolutionary history from the three domains of lives to the Homo sapiens is long enough to defeat all the religious beliefs. The God (it is the religion I am referring to in the quotation) is actually a higher level of lives. Physical differences have created imaginations. The natural role of this Supreme Being is the manipulator (corresponding to the nucleus of each cell). The structural comparisons between the mother cell (the most basic unit of lives on the Earth) and the planet (by looking upon it as a unity) have given us the clue of how the hierarchy of lives works.

Teru Wong