Having a problem believing in Hell

[Spock]

I am responding to the link you provided in your post - it was written by a former priest, so it says.

Sorry, I missed it. No, that guy is someone else, not me.

In that link an imaginary crime is committed and 12 types of God are put on trial for allowing it.

Unfortunately that crime is far too frequent in reality. But the point is that you, the aplogists use those different arguments. You are the spokespersons for God. And as the parable shows, you do a lousy job.

Evil, crime, sin, pain are all endured by God as necessary evils if any people at all are to come through life and avoid hell.

The word “necessary evil” is just an empty phrase. The parable shows 12 different ways of attempting to fill it up with substance. If you can do a better job, I am here to listen. Just go into details, please.

 

[You]

Sorry, I missed it. No, that guy is someone else, not me.

Unfortunately that crime is far too frequent in reality. But the point is that you, the aplogists use those different arguments. You are the spokespersons for God. And as the parable shows, you do a lousy job.

The word “necessary evil” is just an empty phrase. The parable shows 12 different ways of attempting to fill it up with substance. If you can do a better job, I am here to listen. Just go into details, please.

I gave you two posts already. Argue with them if you wish. They tell you why the arguments on that site are no good.

 

[vz71]

We all abhor pain. No one takes a hammer and beats his own thumb, just to experience pain. I guess, there might be a few insane people who do something like that. Those, who ask to be crucified to emulate the pain Jesus allegedly suffered. But those people all know that their pain will be temporary.

After a lifetime of saying ‘no’ to God, how easy will it be for a person to simply let go and accept God?

Rather then thinking of choosing hell over God, perhaps we should be looking at it from a different viewpoint.

If I live my life in constant rejection of God, I cannot stand to be in his presence.
I must choose to be seperate from God.
Just as the eyes of someone that has lived in the dark for an extended period hurt when exposed to the light, we too hurt when brought before God. Every sin we carry hurts.
So can we take the pain and let our eyes adjust? (purgatory)
Or do we run back into the dark for the pain of our own sinfulness in God’s presence is too much. (hell)

 

[vz71]

Please elaborate. What faulty premise are you talking about?

That the reader knows everything going on.

To place an argument in the mouth of God, you must have the knowledge that God has.
We do not, so any attempt starts off faulty.

 

[Dave_B]

After a lifetime of saying ‘no’ to God, how easy will it be for a person to simply let go and accept God?
Rather then thinking of choosing hell over God, perhaps we should be looking at it from a different viewpoint.
If I live my life in constant rejection of God, I cannot stand to be in his presence.
I must choose to be seperate from God.
Just as the eyes of someone that has lived in the dark for an extended period hurt when exposed to the light, we too hurt when brought before God. Every sin we carry hurts.
So can we take the pain and let our eyes adjust? (purgatory)
Or do we run back into the dark for the pain of our own sinfulness in God’s presence is too much. (hell)

Great, great post

 

[Spock]

After a lifetime of saying ‘no’ to God, how easy will it be for a person to simply let go and accept God?

Hard to tell, but I would not think it is especially difficult. But this is just a gut-feeling, nothing more.

Rather then thinking of choosing hell over God, perhaps we should be looking at it from a different viewpoint.

Ok, let’s try.

If I live my life in constant rejection of God, I cannot stand to be in his presence.

Here comes the problem. I don’t reject God, I do not believe he exists. On the other hand, I do reject what the apologists say about God. Do you see the huge difference? I do not doubt your sincerely or your good will and your honest attempt to help me to “see the light”. But that is not enough. I doubt that your version of “truth ™” is valid. Far be it from me to intentionally hurt you (Apage Satanas - or is it Agape Satanas? just kidding, but could not resist the pun), but I cannot take any of the apologists seriously, especially when they talk about “sins”. They all seem to me as people who assert that they are hens, but cannot lay an egg to prove it.

I must choose to be separate from God.

I don’t and cannot choose to be with God or be separate from God. The very first thing would be necessary to make a selection is to be 100% sure that there is God to either accept or reject.

Just as the eyes of someone that has lived in the dark for an extended period hurt when exposed to the light, we too hurt when brought before God. Every sin we carry hurts.
So can we take the pain and let our eyes adjust? (purgatory)
Or do we run back into the dark for the pain of our own sinfulness in God’s presence is too much. (hell)

I rather doubt that this is the official version of the church, but it could be. No fire and brimstone, no worms gnawing on your intestines any more? This life, where we wallow in sin (allegedly) is not too bad. We do not have any “vision” of God here. I know that some people dispute this, but since they have only their word for it, and they cannot tell me how can I obtain the same alleged vision, their word (honest it may be) is simply worthless.

 

[Spock]

That the reader knows everything going on.

To place an argument in the mouth of God, you must have the knowledge that God has.
We do not, so any attempt starts off faulty.

I see. That would be acceptable. But remember, it is the apologists who say those things! If someone would say: “we have no idea why those events occur, we cannot have any rational explanation for them, but we trust God” - that would be an acceptable and honest answer. Of course it would be an admission of pure, blind faith, but I have yet to see anyone who would be willing to do that.

 

[vz71]

I rather doubt that this is the official version of the church, but it could be. No fire and brimstone, no worms gnawing on your intestines any more? This life, where we wallow in sin (allegedly) is not too bad. We do not have any “vision” of God here.

Ah…
But you do know what has been left.
And the regret of leaving it is one of the tortures of hell.

 

[vz71]

I see. That would be acceptable. But remember, it is the apologists who say those things! If someone would say: “we have no idea why those events occur, we cannot have any rational explanation for them, but we trust God” - that would be an acceptable and honest answer. Of course it would be an admission of pure, blind faith, but I have yet to see anyone who would be willing to do that.

I do.
I have seen way too much in this world that simply defies explanation.
Pure faith that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work to his glory.
After all, I don’t see most of what is really going on.

An apologist that will not acknowledge the position faith has is no apologist at all.

I must confess that there was a time when I tried to seperate out faith from everything else when talking with people.
But I have since learned that it is a message devoid of hope.
Faith must be integral to the message.

 

[Spock]

I do.
I have seen way too much in this world that simply defies explanation.
Pure faith that God knows what he is doing and that it will all work to his glory.
After all, I don’t see most of what is really going on.

An apologist that will not acknowledge the position faith has is no apologist at all.

I must confess that there was a time when I tried to seperate out faith from everything else when talking with people.
But I have since learned that it is a message devoid of hope.
Faith must be integral to the message.

That is quite all right. If anyone says “this <…> is my belief” I may disagree, but I will not push it any further. The only problem comes if that person thinks that he delivered an argument against my proposition. Any clarification of the his stance is welcome. It will give me additional insight into his state of mind, so my understanding will grow. But to think that such an utterance is an actual argument is not acceptable.

Let me give an example. Suppose that one unrepented mortal sin will result in going to hell. I think this is a fair representaion of the catholic stance. Now, it is also a catholic view that once someone is in hell, there are no more “chances” to repent. One strike and you are out, so to speak. I would counter this argument that a “really and truly loving God” would give more than one chance to repent. Once the sinner gets into hell, and actually experiences the loss, he might “change his mind” and chooses to repent. I think that it is reasonable, and a direct logical corollary to God’s loving nature.

If you would say: “this is what I believe”, I would simply shut up. If however, you would say that there are no more options in hell, or that no one in hell wants to escape their predicament, then I would ask for some reason to say that. At every time in this process you can say: “this is my belief”, and the conversation is over. But as long as you wish to argue for your belief, I will ask “why?” and expect a fully rational (not faith-based) answer.

 

[PAboy57]

I see. That would be acceptable. But remember, it is the apologists who say those things! If someone would say: “we have no idea why those events occur, we cannot have any rational explanation for them, but we trust God” - that would be an acceptable and honest answer. Of course it would be an admission of pure, blind faith, but I have yet to see anyone who would be willing to do that.

Pure, blind faith is what all believers have!!! We cannot prove the existance of God (nor can anyone disprove it) but because of the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church, we have accepted all of that on FAITH. That is what it is. I hope someday you can take the step. We believe your alternative is not a good one.

John Chapter 29:

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands; stretch out your hand and put it into my side. Resist no longer and be a believer.”
28 Thomas then said, “You are my Lord and my God.”
29 Jesus replied, “You believe because you see me, don’t you? Happy are those who have not seen and believe.”
30 There were many other signs that Jesus gave in the presence of his disciples, but they are not recorded in this book.
31 These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; believe and you will have life through his Name.

 

[Spock]

Pure, blind faith is what all believers have!!!

I know, but very few people will admit it. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with it, as long as we are both aware of it. Thanks and best wishes.

 

[You]

Sorry, I missed it. No, that guy is someone else, not me.

Unfortunately that crime is far too frequent in reality. But the point is that you, the aplogists use those different arguments. You are the spokespersons for God. And as the parable shows, you do a lousy job.

The word “necessary evil” is just an empty phrase. The parable shows 12 different ways of attempting to fill it up with substance. If you can do a better job, I am here to listen. Just go into details, please.

I gave you my answer already, but I’ll give it again, as you wish.
You want to know why God does not just kill the sinners. That is why your ‘parable’ has no ‘substance’. The question has been addressed already thousands of years ago - the wheat must grow with the cockle.

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. [25] But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.

[26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. [27] And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? [28] And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? [29] And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. [30] Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

 

[Spock]

You want to know why God does not just kill the sinners. That is why your ‘parable’ has no ‘substance’.

No, I did not “ask” that. You misunderstand the whole question. But I will answer you anyway. The Catholic stance is:

1. God created all those people.
2. God knew that they will turn into sinners.
3. God deliberately (as opposed to unknowingly or accidentally) created the sinners.
4. God was under no “obligation” to create anything.

This is what the church teaches. (Matthew 7:13 - 14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”) The rest is just the logical corollary.

Therefore it is God’s fault that he created the sinners, and instead of taking responsibility for that, he tortures all those sinners for eternity. To simply kill (obliterate) all those sinners would be much kinder than the eternal torture.

Your “defense” is worse than the “attack”. Your attempt of apologetics is just as bad and unacceptable as all the other attempts. By the way, the text in the parable is precisely what the other apologists say. The wording is, of course, is a bit more explicit, but the substance is the same. The truth is that nothing I (the atheist) can say is as derogatory, disrespectful and pejorative as the things that you (the apologists) say about God.

 

[fide]

No, I did not “ask” that. You misunderstand the whole question. But I will answer you anyway. The Catholic stance is:

1. God created all those people.
2. God knew that they will turn into sinners.
3. God deliberately (as opposed to unknowingly or accidentally) created the sinners.
4. God was under no “obligation” to create anything.

This is what the church teaches. (Matthew 7:13 - 14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”) The rest is just the logical corollary.

Therefore it is God’s fault that he created the sinners, and instead of taking responsibility for that, he tortures all those sinners for eternity. To simply kill (obliterate) all those sinners would be much kinder than the eternal torture.

Your “defense” is worse than the “attack”. Your attempt of apologetics is just as bad and unacceptable as all the other attempts. By the way, the text in the parable is precisely what the other apologists say. The wording is, of course, is a bit more explicit, but the substance is the same. The truth is that nothing I (the atheist) can say is as derogatory, disrespectful and pejorative as the things that you (the apologists) say about God.

1. The Church does not teach of any single human person, that he is in hell.
2. The Church does affirm with Scripture that God wills the salvation of all. (for one example - 1 Tim 2:4)
3. The Church teaches that we are to pray and will according to God’s will - thus* we are to hope and pray for the salvation of all men*.

Thus Catholics are to pray for the salvation of all, and will (with God) the salvation of all, and hope for the salvation of all.

A wonderful book that develops and discusses this “radical” perspective (which is not the same as a belief in universal salvation) is Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”?, by Hans Urs von Balthasar. I recommend that you read it. It may relieve you of a fear that God could be unjust, or unmerciful, or unreasonable. Yes, hell exists. Will any human persons be condemned to it? That is an open question, but we are to hope, according to God’s will, that it may never be.

 

[You]

No, I did not “ask” that. You misunderstand the whole question. But I will answer you anyway. The Catholic stance is:

1. God created all those people.
2. God knew that they will turn into sinners.
3. God deliberately (as opposed to unknowingly or accidentally) created the sinners.
4. God was under no “obligation” to create anything.

This is what the church teaches. (Matthew 7:13 - 14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”) The rest is just the logical corollary.

Therefore it is God’s fault that he created the sinners, and instead of taking responsibility for that, he tortures all those sinners for eternity. To simply kill (obliterate) all those sinners would be much kinder than the eternal torture.

Your “defense” is worse than the “attack”. Your attempt of apologetics is just as bad and unacceptable as all the other attempts. By the way, the text in the parable is precisely what the other apologists say. The wording is, of course, is a bit more explicit, but the substance is the same. The truth is that nothing I (the atheist) can say is as derogatory, disrespectful and pejorative as the things that you (the apologists) say about God.

So, whats your question?
Your opinion of the Catholic stance needs to be tweaked.

1. God created all those people.

He created everyone.

1. God knew that they will turn into sinners.

He knows everything; this does not mean He causes them to sin, as His mission is the reverse of that.

1. God deliberately (as opposed to unknowingly or accidentally) created the sinners.

He created people who are free to sin or not to sin.

1. God was under no “obligation” to create anything.

Obliged to who or what?

 

[You]

quote=Spock Therefore it is God’s fault that he created the sinners, (2) and instead of taking responsibility for that, he tortures all those sinners for eternity. (3) To simply kill (obliterate) all those sinners would be much kinder than the eternal torture.
[/quote]

(1) God created the man; man created the sinner.
(2) The responsibility for sin rests on the sinners; God did not create sin, sin is opposition to God. God is Good.
(3) As God is Good He will not obliterate a soul, as I have heard argued. The bodies and souls of the damned are destroyed in hell by the devil.
But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.

People always seem to forget about the devil in these arguments as well as where the responsibility for sin lies.

 

[vz71]

Therefore it is God’s fault that he created the sinners, and instead of taking responsibility for that, he tortures all those sinners for eternity. To simply kill (obliterate) all those sinners would be much kinder than the eternal torture.

It is not God’s fault what we do with the free will that he has given us.

If we choose to spend eternity seperated from him, that is our choice.
I am sure it saddens God when this happens, but he loves us enough to abide by our choice.

I am sure it would seem kinder to simply destroy the souls of those that turn from him, but that is not the promise of the free will we are given.

Free will has no meaning if there is only one choice possible.

 

[slywakka250]

It is not God’s fault what we do with the free will that he has given us.

If we choose to spend eternity seperated from him, that is our choice.
I am sure it saddens God when this happens, but he loves us enough to abide by our choice.

I am sure it would seem kinder to simply destroy the souls of those that turn from him, but that is not the promise of the free will we are given.

Free will has no meaning if there is only one choice possible.

Yes, but a certain number will choose hell and a certain number will choose heaven. Why is this?

If God only created ONE human person, which eternal destiny would he choose??

If God created ONE human person a very large number of times, (repeating the universe over and over again), would this ONE person choose heaven every time, choose hell every time, or some magic ratio of heaven/hell???

The point is God splits up the destiny of man into eternal misery and eternal bliss. Man does not have a common destiny. This seems so strange to me. It appears God has stacked the deck to get a specific result, (a certain number in hell and a certain number in heaven)… It seems it pleases him to have some go to hell, for the greater glory of those heaven??? It seems unfair to me.

 

[fide]

Yes, but a certain number will choose hell and a certain number will choose heaven. Why is this?

If God only created ONE human person, which eternal destiny would he choose??

If God created ONE human person a very large number of times, (repeating the universe over and over again), would this ONE person choose heaven every time, choose hell every time, or some magic ratio of heaven/hell???

The point is God splits up the destiny of man into eternal misery and eternal bliss. Man does not have a common destiny. This seems so strange to me. It appears God has stacked the deck to get a specific result, (a certain number in hell and a certain number in heaven)… It seems it pleases him to have some go to hell, for the greater glory of those heaven??? It seems unfair to me.

You do not know that any will choose hell. The Church has declared some to be in heaven (the saints), but has not taught that any human persons are in hell.