Hell confuses me

[jcrichton]

Then I think it best I quash that ignorance since this is a current event.

Sean Spicer is the press secretary of the United States. A week and a half ago when talking about President Assad of Syria he said Assad was worse than Adolph Hitler, since Hitler never used chemical weapons. This, of course, was quite offensive as he most certainly used chemical weapons to kill his own people.

Now several days back you asked, “Have you noticed (from historical account) how states hostile to Yahweh God murder millions of their own citizens because they make themselves into gods?” I pointed out how the Nazis were so non-hostile to God that their buckles said “God With Us”. This was to show that the murder of one’s one people was independent of one’s association with God.

That is why I referred to it as a Sean Spicer moment. I realize that your initial question may not have realized the connection there, but there was no comment after I pointed it out. It is uncomfortable and wanted to see if you perhaps wanted to clarify your statement or maybe retract it. So I ask again now if you would like to do so.

Hi, Mike!

I’m apolitical… so most of such events go right over my head; I did hear some of the argument; what I believe was said that “at least he did not use chemical weapons on his own people.” Regardless of the intent, using such sensitive language is counter productive.

It’s been my estimation that people attempt to sound “intelligent” and to “appeal” to the masses but they simply put their foot/feet in their mouths…

In the use someone introduced the term “In God we Trust.” …and there’s that pesky “one nation under God…” thing. Does that means that the USA is truly a Christian nation that upholds the Truth Taught by Christ?

Nazis murdering and torturing people and claiming some Christian “credo” does not make them Christians:

20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

(1 St. John 4:20)
…though this is meant Believers specifically, it extends to non-Believers as well:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

(St. Matthew 5:43-45)
It is a mute argument to say that Hitler and others such as he were Catholics or Christians or that they acted for Yahweh God!

I disagree with you on both parts. Tell me where the Church was blamed for deaths for which it was not responsible. Amnesty International is just one of many organizations out there that speak out against tyranny against peoples by their governments. Take a look at what they do and see if you can rightly say that no one speaks out about against abuses and oppression.

This is a huge issue; if you want to know just look at the claims (books written and “scholar’s” claims which have been proven anti-Catholic fallacies).

Rather than continue this tangent, start a thread that deals with it.

Such as?

Is it my turn to bring you across? Check the Middle East, Africa and China–amnesty international do not even acknowledge the barbarity that is being exercised; the UN is the epitome of the three monkeys (hear, speak, see no evil), and the US, till just recently, did not even know that “Christians” were being oppressed and murdered anywhere in the world… (again, this is a huge issue and a tangent on this thread)

The argument you made is that non-Christians shouldn’t bother asking about Christianity since they don’t believe in it. You can’t say that argument remains when I’ve pointed you to a portion of this very site where Christians show interest in non-Christians. It’s there if you wish to look.

It is one thing to say one is searching for knowledge/understanding, another thing is to attack under such guise (check my first response on this mixed issue); …and I think that you’ve made my point; there are forums here where other religions are being discussed, there are even homosexual issues and others… I am not telling you not to engage; I am saying that if you engage as an attack you cannot claim that it is a search for truth or an exchange of ideas… so it should not surprise you if someone would suggest that ‘what you don’t believe can’t hurt you’ or some other expression that would counter the attack (or what is perceived as an attack).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

And that intellect I have sees quite a few holes in the God story.

The pretzel logic required to connect not believing – ***an act which I’ve already explained is not done by choice ***-- to eternal torment is astounding.

---

To believe or not believe is a choice. And we make it freely

---

"M:

Christianity is only one of many faiths with vague threats where there are claims linking a set of actions with a set of consequences, but they are never, ever, ever, ever proven.

There is nothing vague here. The proof is there…

example:
If Christ had not died and raised from the dead on the 3rd day, just as He said, then as Paul wrote, If that did NOT happen, Our faith is in vain and we of all people are fools. 1 Cor 15:15-18(paraphrased)

Jesus is alive, and everything He said will come true. Since He is the one who will judge everyone, those who don’t believe, well, there are eternal consequences for that choice.
M:

So I should follow the five pillars of Islam and worship Allah if one is to fear the consequences of life after death.

Why?

Did Mohammad rise from the dead? Nope!
M:

These kinds of statements never are convincing. Future threats of doom that are constructed so that they can never be disproven usually come out only after the apologetics have collapsed under their own weight of incongruity.

Just denying is not an answer.
M:

So you’re saying we should do things based solely on the severity of the punsihment for not doing so. Some other religions have similar threats, but you don’t follow those. If I call someone’s workplace and claim to be from the F.B.I. and say their co-worker is a terrorist and should be subdued, should that person do as I saw based solely on the threat that terrorist could potentially produce? Heck, if we want to go back to the supernatural should a kid avoid stepping on a crack to avoid breaking his mother’s back?

These may sound silly, but I’m proving a point: When we do or don’t do something we don’t just consider the consequences but also whether the action could conceivably lead to those consequences. I simply don’t see the plausibility and the more material I read the less plausible it seems to me.

I’m saying, deny all you want. Jesus didn’t convince non believers on this side of eternity either, even when His own disciples, who saw Him work miracles and raise people from the dead, they walked away from Him because they chose not to believe in Him.

Jesus not only raised others from the dead He Himself was raised from the dead. Fully seen by eyewitnesses. Yet people do choose not to believe. That’s their choice and choices have consequences

Again that doesn’t show how a soul after death can not change it ways.

Once judged, there is no changing that. Souls in hell can’t change and go to heaven, anymore than souls in heaven can change and go to hell.
M:

All it’s saying is that it can’t escape from where it will spend eternity. We know that often times people won’t change until they’ve experienced the lowest of lows. Thomas Aquinas hadn’t experienced death and his statement is far more conjured than contemplated.

Aquinas put into words what happened to Jesus with His disciples, during the bread of life discourse. Jn 6: 49-70

God gives everyone enough grace to be saved, enough grace to make the right decision. That doesn’t mean or guarantee a person chooses to respond to that grace.

You want to see everything yourself on this side of eternity, before you commit. Good for you. So would every body else.

What you’re describing is what life is actually like on the other side. No faith is needed nor is hope needed then. EVERYTHING is visible. Not so on this side.

Hebrews 11:1
 faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Ya gotta make your choices on this side of eternity.

 

[twf]

Don’t worry about that. I know there are great amount of Catholics who don’t fall into the trap that if X can’t be explained right now then X must be caused by God. There is a lot we don’t know and likely things we will never know. And while I’m doubtful, I understand that within that space could (at least conceivably) be the God of Christianity. My take, to sort of bring it around to topic of Hell and confusion, is that I don’t think it’s provable – and certainly not to the point whereby honest doubts warrant eternal torment.

And of course there are those bishops and theologians who have suggested, without any sort of censure from the Church, that far more people may be saved than we tend to think by means known only to God…for the exact reasons you raise. Is the typical atheist truly culpable for his unbelief if he hasn’t received the gift of faith that I have? Pope Francis has discussed the possibility of the salvation of atheists.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

jchrichton:

Hi, Mike!

…the problem lies in how you interpret things…

A person who refuses to believe (atheist, gnostic, agnostic…) rules everything he/she does not understand or is able to prove to him/herself as “not.”

God tells you that He made Himself Known through nature so that even the most slow-minded individual could not claim ignorance of God’s existence…

What has been Revealed about God through nature and through Scriptures is there for all to either accept or reject. Those who accept God’s Revelations must then submit their wills to God’s Will in order to gain Fellowship.

For the longest time so much about nature was ascribed to the will of God. And bit by bit we as a species studied, struggled, and learned. That which we ascribed to God gets smaller and smaller. Nature does not make a god (yours or any other), it just makes gods more unnecessary the more we understand it. You can call me “the most slow-minded individual” but I want my knowledge to be true and verifiable and honest. I will accept an I don’t know, but I won’t fill in an I don’t know with a God-did-it to quell the curiousity inside me.

Those who refuse to accept–their choice is clear, they reject God.

I reject the concept of God until I’m provided with ample evidence. I’m not rejecting God.

There’s only once choice: “choose Life.”

I do choose life. I live it every day. What you’re asking me to choose is “the next life”, which doesn’t appear to exist. Based on what I’ve studied and learned it’s imperative to live the life we can be sure exists and not a fanciful notion that is odds with similar fanciful notions from other religions.

So if you label the rejection of God as “doubt” or “ignorance” or “need more info” well that’s your choice: not Life.

God is not sending/condemning you to eternal torment; you are choosing to exercise your freewill to reject the possibility of eternal torment and to embrace the purported reality of “there’s no God:”

If I don’t follow a directive from my boss at work I get in trouble. If my boss issues a directive and doesn’t tell anyone about it I am not culpable for not following that directive.

If I hear a rumour of a directive and I’m not sure whether it came from my boss or not, I go to my boss – except I can’t do that with religious directives since he’s always absent.

1 The fool[a] says in his heart,
“There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

Say for the sake of argument that you are correct and there is no God… what would you have lost if you lived your life according to the Doctrine that Yahweh God prescribes: Love God Above all else and your neighbor as yourself?

What’s the worst that you would have lost? Time being generous and kindhearted, providing a nurturing and protective environment for yourself and all around you? Multiply that by the billions in the human experience…

Conversely, what would you gain by refusing to Love God Above all and your neighbor as yourself? …just listing/look at the daily news events: hatred, greed, oppression, destruction…

So when faced with the choice: “…choose Life…” why choose death?

“To thine ownself be true,” from Hamlet is a far better quote than that very silly Bible quote. There was a recent thread on CAF about Pascal’s Wager (which is what you’re describing). And we talked about whether one is to go through the motions of acting like God exists when the person finds the case for God extremely wanting. To some the ritual is more important than the belief. Above you’re suggesting that kindheartedness, nurturing, being protective only comes from your particular version of God. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again: There are good and bad people of all religions and good and bad people with no religion.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!

I’m apolitical… so most of such events go right over my head; I did hear some of the argument; what I believe was said that “at least he did not use chemical weapons on his own people.” Regardless of the intent, using such sensitive language is counter productive.

It’s been my estimation that people attempt to sound “intelligent” and to “appeal” to the masses but they simply put their foot/feet in their mouths…

In the use someone introduced the term “In God we Trust.” …and there’s that pesky “one nation under God…” thing. Does that means that the USA is truly a Christian nation that upholds the Truth Taught by Christ?

Nazis murdering and torturing people and claiming some Christian “credo” does not make them Christians:

…though this is meant Believers specifically, it extends to non-Believers as well:

It is a mute argument to say that Hitler and others such as he were Catholics or Christians or that they acted for Yahweh God!

Your original statement did not say Christian nation. You said, “Have you noticed (from historical account) how states hostile to Yahweh God murder millions of their own citizens because they make themselves into gods?” There is a bright line between a Christian nation and one that is simply not hostile to Yahweh God. The United States is not a Christian nation but it is not hostile to your God. The same was true for Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler embraced the Christian God, spoke out against secular schools, and closed freethought organization.

Your analogy is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Allow me to explain.

1. A man says that no Scotsman drinks tea with milk.
2. A woman gives an example of a Scotsman who drinks tea with milk.
3. The man says that doesn’t count and that no true Scotsman drinks tea with milk.

You asked for a nation not hostile to Yahweh that killed millions of its own people. I gave an example and showed how it was not hostile to Yahweh. You responded that this didn’t count as a true nation that was not hostile to Yahweh.

This is a huge issue; if you want to know just look at the claims (books written and “scholar’s” claims which have been proven anti-Catholic fallacies).

Rather than continue this tangent, start a thread that deals with it.

I should note that in our discussion so far you have asked me for references to back up claims that I’ve made, and each time I have provided multiple references. I was hoping to be afforded the same type of response when I asked for references to back up your claims.

Is it my turn to bring you across? Check the Middle East, Africa and China–amnesty international do not even acknowledge the barbarity that is being exercised; the UN is the epitome of the three monkeys (hear, speak, see no evil), and the US, till just recently, did not even know that “Christians” were being oppressed and murdered anywhere in the world… (again, this is a huge issue and a tangent on this thread)

Here’s a report from Amnesty International noting various human rights abuses in China including those against Christians.
Here are search results on Amnesty International’s page for “Christian persecution in China”.

You can’t say that Amnesty International doesn’t acknowledge what is happening in China when literally 10 seconds of searching the web shows that to be false.

As far as the United Nations, that’s one thing we agree on. They are terrible when it comes to point out human rights violations; but the U.N. is not the world and is but one international organization.

It is one thing to say one is searching for knowledge/understanding, another thing is to attack under such guise (check my first response on this mixed issue); …and I think that you’ve made my point; there are forums here where other religions are being discussed, there are even homosexual issues and others… I am not telling you not to engage; I am saying that if you engage as an attack you cannot claim that it is a search for truth or an exchange of ideas… so it should not surprise you if someone would suggest that ‘what you don’t believe can’t hurt you’ or some other expression that would counter the attack (or what is perceived as an attack).

Nothing I said was an attack, but merely a flaw in your argument. If you say A is wrong for interacting in a certain way with B, and I show how B interacts the same way with A then you can’t fault A for being wrong unless you also want to fault B. It’s very straightforward and an appropriate response to a statement that was in error.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To believe or not believe is a choice. And we make it freely

Belief is not a choice, but a reaction to evidence. It is not a reaction to potential positive or negative consequences no matter how amazing or devestating those consequences are alleged to be.

There is nothing vague here. The proof is there…

example:
If Christ had not died and raised from the dead on the 3rd day, just as He said, then as Paul wrote, If that did NOT happen, Our faith is in vain and we of all people are fools. 1 Cor 15:15-18(paraphrased)

Jesus is alive, and everything He said will come true. Since He is the one who will judge everyone, those who don’t believe, well, there are eternal consequences for that choice.

He said that he would return within the lifetimes of the people he spoke to with a series of signs that all the world would see. That didn’t happen and the Bible says that if a prophet makes a prophecy that isn’t fulfilled then he should be ignored (see Deuteronomy 18:22). There is no reason why I should believe someone whose religion specifically says not to believe him.

Did Mohammad rise from the dead? Nope!

First of all, Muslims don’t consider Mohammed a God so it’s not a one-to-one comparison. Still Jesus never flew on a buraq (winged horse or camel) like Mohammed allegedly did. Jesus won’t fight Jörmungandr, the Midgard serpent at the end of time. You can’t just point to one unique aspect of your deity while neglecting that other deities also feature aspects that no other deities possess.

Just denying is not an answer.

But I’m not just denying. As I said the just-wait-and-see-when-you’re-dead argument holds as much weight as any threat that can never possibly be demonstrated. It’s a convenient out that many religions use, and yet those religions don’t believe the threats of all the other religions. It’s like a bunch of kids on a playground talking about how their big brothers are going to go after the others.

I’m saying, deny all you want. Jesus didn’t convince non believers on this side of eternity either, even when His own disciples, who saw Him work miracles and raise people from the dead, they walked away from Him because they chose not to believe in Him.

Jesus not only raised others from the dead He Himself was raised from the dead. Fully seen by eyewitnesses. Yet people do choose not to believe. That’s their choice and choices have consequences

Your basing this all on the assumption that those tales are real. Real people don’t choose or not choose to believe things. They are either convinced or not. I am not. Some of the others who have studied as much as I have are convinced. The available evidence we have is not definitive by a long shot. A reasonable person can be convinced to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist based on this gray area. To punish someone for not being convinced by the lack of evidence is to punish some forms of reasonable thought.

Once judged, there is no changing that. Souls in hell can’t change and go to heaven, anymore than souls in heaven can change and go to hell.

Let me repeat yet again: I am not talking about the location of the soul post-death or whether that location can change. What I am talking about is whether “someone who willed evil will continue to will evil, forever” and how Thomas Aquinas can prove that. It’s common practice that if one makes an assertion that he or she should then back that assertion with facts. I am still waiting for those facts.

Aquinas put into words what happened to Jesus with His disciples, during the bread of life discourse. Jn 6: 49-70

God gives everyone enough grace to be saved, enough grace to make the right decision. That doesn’t mean or guarantee a person chooses to respond to that grace.

You want to see everything yourself on this side of eternity, before you commit. Good for you. So would every body else.

What you’re describing is what life is actually like on the other side. No faith is needed nor is hope needed then. EVERYTHING is visible. Not so on this side.

Hebrews 11:1
 faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Ya gotta make your choices on this side of eternity.

Humanity is littered with examples of people who have expressed regret, remorse, contrition after it’s too late to do anything about it. Aquinas is stating that it’s impossible that a person would do so after death. If there is a reasoning behind it, I’d be interested to hear it; but I suspect like so much apologetics what it lacks in reasoning it makes up for in confident yet evidence-free assertions.

 

[jcrichton]

And of course there are those bishops and theologians who have suggested, without any sort of censure from the Church, that far more people may be saved than we tend to think by means known only to God…for the exact reasons you raise. Is the typical atheist truly culpable for his unbelief if he hasn’t received the gift of faith that I have? Pope Francis has discussed the possibility of the salvation of atheists.

Hi!

…yeah, and I robbed the bank because I was poor and hungry not because I wanted take someone else’s property/wealth!

…Salvation is God’s Alone.

Yet, actively rejecting God does not equate to ignorance of God.

…actively denying the Existence of God does not allow for a “default” Salvation!:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

(Romans 1:18-20)
Yes, it is a good thing to hope that all of humanity will gain Salvation… but the reality is:

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

(St. John 3:19-20)
What was the difference between Cain’s and Abel’s offerings?

Abel listened to his heart and spirit and offered to Yahweh God the best of his flock.

Cain sought a shortcut and offered whatever.

Even when Cain witnessed God’s approval of Abel’s offering, he sought to force God to his will by taking out the competition!

Ignorance and rebelliousness are not even near congruency!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

For the longest time so much about nature was ascribed to the will of God. And bit by bit we as a species studied, struggled, and learned. That which we ascribed to God gets smaller and smaller. Nature does not make a god (yours or any other), it just makes gods more unnecessary the more we understand it. You can call me “the most slow-minded individual” but I want my knowledge to be true and verifiable and honest. I will accept an I don’t know, but I won’t fill in an I don’t know with a God-did-it to quell the curiousity inside me.

I reject the concept of God until I’m provided with ample evidence. I’m not rejecting God.

I do choose life. I live it every day. What you’re asking me to choose is “the next life”, which doesn’t appear to exist. Based on what I’ve studied and learned it’s imperative to live the life we can be sure exists and not a fanciful notion that is odds with similar fanciful notions from other religions.

If I don’t follow a directive from my boss at work I get in trouble. If my boss issues a directive and doesn’t tell anyone about it I am not culpable for not following that directive.

If I hear a rumour of a directive and I’m not sure whether it came from my boss or not, I go to my boss – except I can’t do that with religious directives since he’s always absent.

“To thine ownself be true,” from Hamlet is a far better quote than that very silly Bible quote. There was a recent thread on CAF about Pascal’s Wager (which is what you’re describing). And we talked about whether one is to go through the motions of acting like God exists when the person finds the case for God extremely wanting. To some the ritual is more important than the belief. Above you’re suggesting that kindheartedness, nurturing, being protective only comes from your particular version of God. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again: There are good and bad people of all religions and good and bad people with no religion.

Hi!

…this is the beginning of a circular engagement… we will forever just speak past each other since we don’t have common ground/understanding… just to clarify: lightning and thunder does not make “oh wow it’s God.”

The Revelation in nature is that which can be known through revelation (discovery) as the laws and elements… you seek wisdom and knowledge, yet you ascribe what is Revealed as pure human “genius” ignoring the fact that that genius was Created into humanity and throughout time made known (unfolded).

I cannot compel you to go beyond your self-set limitations just as you cannot convince me to attribute to happenstance the marvel of Creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Your original statement did not say Christian nation. You said, “Have you noticed (from historical account) how states hostile to Yahweh God murder millions of their own citizens because they make themselves into gods?” There is a bright line between a Christian nation and one that is simply not hostile to Yahweh God. The United States is not a Christian nation but it is not hostile to your God. The same was true for Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler embraced the Christian God, spoke out against secular schools, and closed freethought organization.

Your analogy is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Allow me to explain.

1. A man says that no Scotsman drinks tea with milk.
2. A woman gives an example of a Scotsman who drinks tea with milk.
3. The man says that doesn’t count and that no true Scotsman drinks tea with milk.

You asked for a nation not hostile to Yahweh that killed millions of its own people. I gave an example and showed how it was not hostile to Yahweh. You responded that this didn’t count as a true nation that was not hostile to Yahweh.

I should note that in our discussion so far you have asked me for references to back up claims that I’ve made, and each time I have provided multiple references. I was hoping to be afforded the same type of response when I asked for references to back up your claims.

…again, it goes to different understanding/ground–when the state (the ruling power of a nation) engages in death and destruction, that nation may have millions of Believers who feel differently but are powerless to stop the state from the evil which it is spawning.

When a Believer ceases to Obey Yahweh God, he/she ceases being in Fellowship with Yahweh God.

Your understanding is that even when the state oppresses, tortures, and murders, if one citizen is a Believer than that nation adheres to Yahweh God.

Here’s

a report from Amnesty International noting various human rights abuses in China including those against Christians.
Here are search results on Amnesty International’s page for “Christian persecution in China”.

You can’t say that Amnesty International doesn’t acknowledge what is happening in China when literally 10 seconds of searching the web shows that to be false.
I followed your links and I did read on AI’s reports–I must admit that I am not versed on it since my attempts have brought me to empty sites or sites loaded with commercials with little substance… so I grant you that my search was not as productive as yours.

Nothing I said was an attack, but merely a flaw in your argument. If you say A is wrong for interacting in a certain way with B, and I show how B interacts the same way with A then you can’t fault A for being wrong unless you also want to fault B. It’s very straightforward and an appropriate response to a statement that was in error.

…My crime boss is honest and your God is a trickster who wants to punish with Hell all the people he can get from my perspective. That makes him then a Sociopath. Even if he was open how could I worship save for fear of Hell such a being I would pay lip service and it would be fear and not love or desire to care for him as a good being but as a horror.

…our engagement comes at the foot of this post; I may be dense but I cannot be see a slightly veiled assault–perhaps it is only the appearance of an attack; perhaps there’s truly a “deep searching” going on… but the wording, at least to me, seem to infer a very distinct understanding of “Yahweh God.”

…and your argument is not much better:

Agreed, Libertarian_FL… God/Yahweh as a mob boss who shows no evidence of acting on his threats, then we have many other similar bosses who not only demand protection but allegedly get angry when protection is paid to other such mob bosses.

…though you may be claiming “seeking knowledge,” I see only ‘made up my mind, here’s how it really is:’

…so your argument is always going to reflect what you already claim as the “right stuff.”

…this brings us to a circular engagement since no matter what is presented you will not accept since your preconception is well entrenched in your methodology.

Water is the only element that retains its properties in all forms (liquid, solid, gas), I can point to this as a sign (Romans 1:18-32); yet, you will argue that: ‘it is only serendipity!’

Maran atha!

Angel