Hell confuses me

[jcrichton]

Non-believers come in various stripes, including mellow and irate. The same is true for believers.

I have noticed that there are those out there who purport to believe in Christianity who don’t follow the tenet listed in Exodus 20:16. Like I said just above, non-believers and believers come in all stripes. I suspect that if I were to start pointing out non-Christians who are not hostile to life that I’d be told they don’t count.

“God With Us”

If memory serves I’ve brought this point up to you specificially in the past year:

If a person states they are a non-believer then believers will often tell that person that they need to study the matter more. steve b in literally the post before yours said that there is a threat of Hell for those who could’ve studied more the existence of God but chose not to.

Then when a non-believer discusses Christianity with a believer and points what he or she thinks are points which don’t make sense, are distasteful, or are internally inconsistent, often the response then is that the non-believer has studied the matter too much and thus must secretly realize that what they are arguing against is true. This type of silliness, I find at least, comes when the points made by the non-believer can’t be disputed.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It seems there is no sweet spot to which a non-believer has studied the right amount of the faith. And as I’ve said before part of the reason why non-believers are keen on questioning Christianity is twofold. One is the amount of influence the faith often wishes to exert on people as a whole – whether it be through legal means or the court of public opinion. Two is that if a group calls another group amoral then it’s only right for the second group to correct the first.

Hi, Mike!

…I don’t think you got any of my points and the ones you’ve made simply do not connect…

Let’s bottom this up…

When have you heard of a Catholic or Christian entity using the courts to present cases against non-Believers on the grounds that they do not Believe?

However, non-Believers not only sue entities but they also sue individuals who do not hold their “standards.”

…talk about bullying… mandating that a person must not only accept others’ beliefs but that the government must exercise it’s power to force it down the throats of those who do not hold the same values…

Tell me, when did the Church or any other Christian institution forced prayer in public school?

Conversely, why did the government forced the Catholic Church to close its agencies when obstinate homosexuals demanded that they be accepted and allowed to adopt children from Catholic agencies? What happened to the freedom to go to another source or do you truly believe that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on orphaned children?

How can you claim such nonsense as forcing a Catholic institution to promote abortion, contraception and homosexuality and call it anything but anti-Christian oppression?

Take the issue of aids and human traffic–the UN and other agencies have forced the Church to cease helping these victims because the Church cannot embrace the culture of death… and though abstinence is the only 100% “safe” practice, the Church is forbidden to help because she would not espouse herself with the culture of death (contraception, abortion…).

…and talk about unfairness, agencies that claim to fight for human right are so bent against the Church that they rather see people fail/hurt than to accept that what the Church brings to the table is sound and beneficial.

Here’s the TKO: the Church never requires that anyone converts (accept Yahweh God or Catholicism) in order to assist them.

…and while it is true that all people from all pedigrees are susceptible/prone to all sorts of human/inhuman behavior, a reasonable person must be blind or engaged in subterfuge to not accept the fact recorded in everyday existence.

…as for your argument, it is not only about overthinking… but the issues that are proposed/argued/presented: blanket statements, blanket analysis, followed by the demand of “proof;” which is then followed by irate rejection…

This thread is about how ‘hell confuses a person;’ are you arguing about what the Faith holds as belief or are you arguing against an “evil” God?

If a person is an atheist, then no fear/concern of hell should be on his/her mind!

If a person is a Believer, then he/she must not be ignorant of what the term “hell” means.

Yet, this thread has been used to present a loose argument against God nor a deepening in the understanding of “hell;” hence my reply!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ThundersnowIV]

It appears Judaism is more loving in this regard since it offers the possibility (not certainty) that the truly evil’s soul can be annihilated rather than suffering the torment, both spiritually and physically, of eternal damnation. Of course, this is due to the fact that Judaism does not believe humanity was ever in need of a Savior in the first place (not the Messiah’s role), as we were not previously on the road to hell without having one.

Further, is the role of Jesus no more in Catholicism (and Christianity, in general) than holding out the possibility of attaining heaven and avoiding hell? I thought Jesus had much of value to say about how mankind should live its life in a meaningfully just and loving way on earth, that is, earthly salvation as well as heavenly salvation.

Yes Meltzerboy…Jesus is concerned about how we live our life on earth. However…that relates to how we will spend eternity.

I know there are different ideas of the afterlife in Judaism. That existed even in the time of Jesus between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. If I remember it was the Pharisees that believed in the afterlife. I could have it backward. Jesus affirmed the afterlife and explained the idea of reward and punishment. So He basically backed the Pharisees on that…but condemned them for their treatment of the people and putting themselves above them. That’s clear in the “woe to thee” verses.

I also found this site interesting in discussing the afterlife from the Jewish perspective.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/heaven-and-hell-in-jewish-tradition/

In all honesty as a Catholic I consider Christians and Jews to be brothers in faith. We worship the same God…but with a different understanding of God. And since Jesus called God “Father” that makes us all brothers.

God Bless

 

[eddie_too]

one of the most prevalent things about people who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ with its gift of eternal life is that they NEVER, EVER offer a better option, NEVER.

they appear to prefer to live a life without faith, without hope and without love to a life full of faith, hope and love with the addition of a promise of eternal peace and joy.

it seems that those who reject Jesus Christ have very poor reasons and gain less than nothing by doing so.

that may be an explanation for the apparent bitterness and anger with which they deny the Incarnation. it is hard not to be bitter and angry when one lives without faith and hope and love.

 

[jcrichton]

one of the most prevalent things about people who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ with its gift of eternal life is that they NEVER, EVER offer a better option, NEVER.

they appear to prefer to live a life without faith, without hope and without love to a life full of faith, hope and love with the addition of a promise of eternal peace and joy.

it seems that those who reject Jesus Christ have very poor reasons and gain less than nothing by doing so.

that may be an explanation for the apparent bitterness and anger with which they deny the Incarnation. it is hard not to be bitter and angry when one lives without faith and hope and love.

Hi, Eddie!

…I think that you are forgetting that things: 1) freedom to engage in everything without that pesky responsibility and accountability, and 2) becoming one’s own god.

…I once heard it say that “…I rather rule in hell than serve in Heaven…”

…just look at aids (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) and the abuse of drugs (including tobacco, alcohol, and prescriptions)–the facts that when man engages in such activities the end-results are the destruction of the family, the individual, long-term illness, and death (at times prolonged and horrible)… yet, man joyfully embraces all the risks that such lifestyle engenders.

Christ is that “friend” to Whom much is owed and the irate response to Him is that of the debtor who is an irresponsible, disrespectful, and immoral leech who wants to profit at the expense of everyone around him/her. Since Jesus reminds him/her of the debt-agreement, He is loathed and maligned.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Judgement happens at death. The life we lived on this side of eternity is judged. This side is where we make our decisions.

At death, one knows immediately where they will be spending eternity.

That change then, happened on this side of death.

As I said before I’m not talking about where the soul resides but whether the soul can escape Hell. I’m instead talking about whether the soul can make a change post death – regardless of whether it’s in Hell or not.

Your responses are talking about the where, but I’m asking about the what. How is Aquinas so incredibly confident about the state of all souls post-death?

We are ALL innocently and vastly ignorant of all kinds of subjects. And for most people with average intelligence, all that vincible ignorance could be relieved with study of the subject. Not so for someone with a low I.Q. No matter how much effort they spend, they will not understand even the most simple of subjects. THEY could be said to be, invincibly ignorant.

That said, I’ve found that in my experience, people I’ve come across, after discussion, who don’t believe, do so because something bad happened in their life and it wasn’t resolved, or they are into something in their life, where believing in God is highly inconvenient, or because they just don’t want to believe. It’s never been because the subject was too tough to get their head around.

I admit being suspicious that every non-believer you met has fallen into one of those stereotypical categories. But even that is the case I am here to give you the good news: You no longer have to make that statement because you’ve met me! My early investigations into atheism started in my early teens when I felt there were several internal inconsistencies. It was not due to a tragic event in my life, nor because of any need for convenience. I’d go so far that being an atheist has been inconvenient.

It certainly wasn’t because I did not want to believe. Two things on that: One, I just want an answer that is true. I don’t wish to hide from truth if it doesn’t match what I want to be true. Two, what one believes is not a choice. I don’t believe because I don’t feel there is evidence to support that belief. Believers believe because they do see the evidence. To chalk up non-belief as self-delusion is in and of itself self-delusion. You may not like what non-believers think on the matter and may disagree with certain points we may have, but it’s done with honesty and forthrightness. If you want to undercut a person’s statement as to how they achieve their beliefs you’d best have evidence to back up those statement or be gracious enough to retract them.

It’s true that one can’t fully come to God unless they have faith. But they can also acknowledge a supreme being behind everything, which they can’t begin to explain, which is faith in it’s root form, it’s just not a formed faith that comes through study.

It’s also true, faith is also a choice one can either accept that free gift from God, or reject it. There are people who once believed, then rejected their belief. That’s a choice they make

Again, belief is not a choice but a reaction to available evidence.

God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth 1 Timothy 2:4 therefore, He won’t withhold faith from anyone who asks for it. Said another way, He stacks the deck in His favor and for our favor.

The same is true for Allah, Krishna, Set, Zeus, Odin, and many other deities you and I would both agree are not real. But the phrase not witholding faith has no weight. I can have faith that our energy crisis can be solved. I can have faith that there can be peace in the Middle East. I can have faith that the beautiful woman who sat next to me at Motor Vehicle has been tracking me down to whisk me away on her private jet to various European locales. I can have faith in Yahweh. There is no limit to what once can have faith in, and different people will have different levels of confidence in those various faiths.

However, God doesn’t force anyone to accept the free gift of faith .

And we know, it’s also true we have consequences for our choices. We don’t live in a consequence free existence.

This is funny to me. Let’s say that your God exists and there are no other gods. Let’s also ignore the glaring problem of divine hiddenness and say God can reasonably be known to exist. To say he doesn’t force anyone into faith is like saying a mugger doesn’t force anyone into giving him their money. A mugging victim goes into it knowing the risks of not complying. But again that’s all based on making several large assumptions. Non-believers haven’t been given the evidence that such a threat exists, so can’t comply whether to act on that threat or not.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you’re interested,

here’s looking at life from purely a natural perspective. Each is a short read.

Each of these either has its own currently active thread on CAF or deserves one. I’m only going to give brief responses to each in this thread.

peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm

Even in the article he admits presuppositionalism is necessary to answer yes on the first four questions.

peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

First of all the article includes a story which Mr. Kreeft makes sound like actually occurred, but doesn’t say so. It sounds fishy to put it generously. Second, this is really a god of the gaps argument, and a poor one at that. We know a portion of how the universe came to be post-Big Bang but certainly not all of it. To misrepresent a current lack of understanding with design is to ignore all the times when humanity has assumed a divine origin for something only later to figure out that it naturally occurred. There are no events that go the other way where what was thought to be natural was shown to be supernatural.

peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

“If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” – Carl Sagan

peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Social evolution is a far better explanation for things like why we have a conscience then just saying God did it and leaving it at that.

peterkreeft.com/topics/history.htm

Peter Kreeft’s first argument puts a great deal of credulity into the stories of the Bible because they are philosophical, ignoring how every culture has such stories and can vary wildly from the Judeo-Christian ones. His second argument talks about the morality of the stories. I’m already off-topic but I’ve spent a great many posts about how portions of the Bible are quite immoral. The third argument talks about coincidences in stories, but again he’s presupposing the stories are true to try and prove God is real. The stories are full of holes of different types. Plus any avid reader will tell you coincidences are signs of poor writing, not truth.

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

There was recently a Pascal’s Wager thread in the philosophy section of CAF. Not only non-believers, but several believers pointed out the flaws of the wager and how it is not a proof of God.

peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

While Kreeft wants to deflect the idea that he’s just restating the ontological argument, that’s exactly what he’s doing while adding the fact that humans are rarely satisfied. That part about humans can also be explained by social evolution, where those that worked to better themselves and their society were more likely to survive and pass down those traits.

peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

What do you get when you combine the failure of C.S. Lewis’s false trilemma with the failure of the shoddy “Wouldn’t die for a lie” arguemnt? Some sort of hybrid superfailure.

peterkreeft.com/topics-mo…n-evidence.htm

Again this is the wouldn’t die for a lie argument. He gives 5 possible explanations, but doesn’t consider a 6th: There are elements of truth combined with falsehoods. It’s the Da Vinci Code.

peterkreeft.com/topics-mo…-existence.htm

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When have you heard of a Catholic or Christian entity using the courts to present cases against non-Believers on the grounds that they do not Believe?

However, non-Believers not only sue entities but they also sue individuals who do not hold their “standards.”

…talk about bullying… mandating that a person must not only accept others’ beliefs but that the government must exercise it’s power to force it down the throats of those who do not hold the same values…

Tell me, when did the Church or any other Christian institution forced prayer in public school?

Let’s start with individual Christians. More than a few custody battles involve one parent saying he or she should have custody because the other parent is of a particular faith or no faith. But the important thing to note is what is a lawsuit for, to gain legal rights to aquire something or to do something. The reason there are few suits by Christians against non-Christians of this type is because we practically never see rights that non-Christians have that Christians don’t. Usually it was non-Christians who had to use the court system to gain rights to match those Christians already had. In the United States some places had laws preventing non-Christians from holding public office or serving on a jury. My parents met at a teaching college, and on a card my mom had signifying that she held a teach license was a line signifying she was believer in the Christian God right above the signature. It was only a few years ago that secular officiant were allowed to oversee weddings in Indiana. Only by going to court was that imbalanced fixed.

Conversely, why did the government forced the Catholic Church to close its agencies when obstinate homosexuals demanded that they be accepted and allowed to adopt children from Catholic agencies? What happened to the freedom to go to another source or do you truly believe that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on orphaned children?

How can you claim such nonsense as forcing a Catholic institution to promote abortion, contraception and homosexuality and call it anything but anti-Christian oppression?

Take the issue of aids and human traffic–the UN and other agencies have forced the Church to cease helping these victims because the Church cannot embrace the culture of death… and though abstinence is the only 100% “safe” practice, the Church is forbidden to help because she would not espouse herself with the culture of death (contraception, abortion…).

…and talk about unfairness, agencies that claim to fight for human right are so bent against the Church that they rather see people fail/hurt than to accept that what the Church brings to the table is sound and beneficial.

In the United States if you provide a service you can’t discriminate against someone for certain classifications, sexuality being one of them. While I do think the free market can alleviate some problems, allowing prejudice by certain groups only exacerbates the situation.

There is a reason why we have fair housing laws and equal employment to not allow landlords/employers to exclude certain people from homes/jobs. The idea that a person could (in theory) go elsewhere doesn’t make it right (especially when all those in a particular area wish to exclude the same people). This has been going on long before segregation at Woolworth’s counters and will do so well after people like Kim Davis. Taken to the very extreme, for a large part of the 20th century Spain some priests and nuns were vital cogs in the process of taking newborn babies, telling the new mothers that the child died, then passing the babies off to families that were considered more suitable. We need to keep the process of adopting children open and we need to make it fair for all applicants.

Here’s the TKO: the Church never requires that anyone converts (accept Yahweh God or Catholicism) in order to assist them.

…and while it is true that all people from all pedigrees are susceptible/prone to all sorts of human/inhuman behavior, a reasonable person must be blind or engaged in subterfuge to not accept the fact recorded in everyday existence.

…as for your argument, it is not only about overthinking… but the issues that are proposed/argued/presented: blanket statements, blanket analysis, followed by the demand of “proof;” which is then followed by irate rejection…

It’s not a matter of who any group gets to assist them so much as who they choose not to assist.

By the way, do you have anything to add or perhaps retract from your earlier question (and my response) asking whether a country not against the Church would kill their own people. It’s a bit Sean Spicer in my opinion.

This thread is about how ‘hell confuses a person;’ are you arguing about what the Faith holds as belief or are you arguing against an “evil” God?

If a person is an atheist, then no fear/concern of hell should be on his/her mind!

Aren’t Christians curious about the ways of non-Christian faiths? The non-Christian section of CAF would suggest so. This is no different.

Don’t Christians tell non-Christians that they have answers to some of the questions regarding life after death? If so, it’s only reasonable that people – both Christian and non-Christian – who naturally have follow-up questions regarding those alleged answers ask them.

If a person is a Believer, then he/she must not be ignorant of what the term “hell” means.

Catholic Answers Live would be pretty quiet each weekday if everyone who believed in Catholicism fully understood every aspect of the faith

Yet, this thread has been used to present a loose argument against God nor a deepening in the understanding of “hell;” hence my reply!

I think we’re somewhat off track on this thread, so hopefully we can get back to the question of hell.

 

[steve_b]

Each of these either has its own currently active thread on CAF or deserves one. I’m only going to give brief responses to each in this thread.

Even in the article he admits presuppositionalism is necessary to answer yes on the first four questions.

First of all the article includes a story which Mr. Kreeft makes sound like actually occurred, but doesn’t say so. It sounds fishy to put it generously. Second, this is really a god of the gaps argument, and a poor one at that. We know a portion of how the universe came to be post-Big Bang but certainly not all of it. To misrepresent a current lack of understanding with design is to ignore all the times when humanity has assumed a divine origin for something only later to figure out that it naturally occurred. There are no events that go the other way where what was thought to be natural was shown to be supernatural.

“If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” – Carl Sagan

Social evolution is a far better explanation for things like why we have a conscience then just saying God did it and leaving it at that.

Peter Kreeft’s first argument puts a great deal of credulity into the stories of the Bible because they are philosophical, ignoring how every culture has such stories and can vary wildly from the Judeo-Christian ones. His second argument talks about the morality of the stories. I’m already off-topic but I’ve spent a great many posts about how portions of the Bible are quite immoral. The third argument talks about coincidences in stories, but again he’s presupposing the stories are true to try and prove God is real. The stories are full of holes of different types. Plus any avid reader will tell you coincidences are signs of poor writing, not truth.

There was recently a Pascal’s Wager thread in the philosophy section of CAF. Not only non-believers, but several believers pointed out the flaws of the wager and how it is not a proof of God.

While Kreeft wants to deflect the idea that he’s just restating the ontological argument, that’s exactly what he’s doing while adding the fact that humans are rarely satisfied. That part about humans can also be explained by social evolution, where those that worked to better themselves and their society were more likely to survive and pass down those traits.

What do you get when you combine the failure of C.S. Lewis’s false trilemma with the failure of the shoddy “Wouldn’t die for a lie” arguemnt? Some sort of hybrid superfailure.

Again this is the wouldn’t die for a lie argument. He gives 5 possible explanations, but doesn’t consider a 6th: There are elements of truth combined with falsehoods. It’s the Da Vinci Code.

as St Thomas Aquinas said so stealthily,

To one who has faith no explanation is necessary, to one without faith no answer will do

 

[steve_b]

As I said before I’m not talking about where the soul resides but whether the soul can escape Hell. I’m instead talking about whether the soul can make a change post death – regardless of whether it’s in Hell or not.

Your responses are talking about the where, but I’m asking about the what. How is Aquinas so incredibly confident about the state of all souls post-death?

I admit being suspicious that every non-believer you met has fallen into one of those stereotypical categories. But even that is the case I am here to give you the good news: You no longer have to make that statement because you’ve met me! My early investigations into atheism started in my early teens when I felt there were several internal inconsistencies. It was not due to a tragic event in my life, nor because of any need for convenience. I’d go so far that being an atheist has been inconvenient.

It certainly wasn’t because I did not want to believe. Two things on that: One, I just want an answer that is true. I don’t wish to hide from truth if it doesn’t match what I want to be true. Two, what one believes is not a choice. I don’t believe because I don’t feel there is evidence to support that belief. Believers believe because they do see the evidence. To chalk up non-belief as self-delusion is in and of itself self-delusion. You may not like what non-believers think on the matter and may disagree with certain points we may have, but it’s done with honesty and forthrightness. If you want to undercut a person’s statement as to how they achieve their beliefs you’d best have evidence to back up those statement or be gracious enough to retract them.

Again, belief is not a choice but a reaction to available evidence.

The same is true for Allah, Krishna, Set, Zeus, Odin, and many other deities you and I would both agree are not real. But the phrase not witholding faith has no weight. I can have faith that our energy crisis can be solved. I can have faith that there can be peace in the Middle East. I can have faith that the beautiful woman who sat next to me at Motor Vehicle has been tracking me down to whisk me away on her private jet to various European locales. I can have faith in Yahweh. There is no limit to what once can have faith in, and different people will have different levels of confidence in those various faiths.

This is funny to me. * Let’s say that your God exists and there are no other gods. Let’s also ignore the glaring problem of divine hiddenness and say God can reasonably be known to exist. To say he doesn’t force anyone into faith is like saying a mugger doesn’t force anyone into giving him their money. A mugging victim goes into it knowing the risks of not complying. But again that’s all based on making several large assumptions. Non-believers haven’t been given the evidence that such a threat exists, so can’t comply whether to act on that threat or not*.

Does God hold a gun to yours or anybody’s head? No. He gave us all memory intellect and free will to use properly.

If I say to you don’t speed around a neighborhood, or something terrible will happen. You don’t take the warning. You speed anyway. And you hit and kill a child.

Did I force you to do that? Was I sitting in the back seat forcing you to speed? I merely told you in advance don’t speed or something bad will happen, and you did it anyway ans something terrible did happen. Whose fault is it? Whose going down for the crime? Me for warning you or you who did the crime?

God does the same with all of us. He sets rules in advance. And He says what the consequences are in advance for disobeying the rules. Gee how novel.

Actions have consequences. Again, gee how novel

Have you not seen from God, all the warnings of hell in the next life spoken of in scripture if we don’t obey Him in this life?

But you don’t have to believe any of that. Just wait for death to see if it is true or not.

I’m saying if you wait till death, that’s taking a galactically stupid chance

 

[steve_b]

As I said before I’m not talking about where the soul resides but whether the soul can escape Hell. I’m instead talking about whether the soul can make a change post death – regardless of whether it’s in Hell or not.

 

[twf]

Each of these either has its own currently active thread on CAF or deserves one. I’m only going to give brief responses to each in this thread.

…
First of all the article includes a story which Mr. Kreeft makes sound like actually occurred, but doesn’t say so. It sounds fishy to put it generously. Second, this is really a god of the gaps argument, and a poor one at that. We know a portion of how the universe came to be post-Big Bang but certainly not all of it. To misrepresent a current lack of understanding with design is to ignore all the times when humanity has assumed a divine origin for something only later to figure out that it naturally occurred. There are no events that go the other way where what was thought to be natural was shown to be supernatural.
…

I just wanted to mention that many Catholic thinkers absolutely reject the “God of the gaps” line of reasoning. Fr. Coyne, the Jesuit priest and (now retired) astronomer, comes to mind. I don’t want you to walk away from these forums thinking that some of the views herein expressed represent the “only” orthodox Catholic mindset.

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s start with individual Christians. More than a few custody battles involve one parent… The reason there are few suits by Christians against non-Christians of this type is because we practically never see rights that non-Christians have that Christians don’t. Usually it was non-Christians who had to use the court system to gain rights to match those Christians already had. In the US… laws preventing non-Christians from holding public office or serving on a jury. My parents met at a teaching college, and on a card my mom had signifying that she held a teach license was a line signifying she was believer in the Christian God… It was only a few years ago that secular officiant were allowed to oversee weddings in Indiana. Only by going to court was that imbalanced fixed.

Hi, Mike!

I’ve never heard of a single case where atheism has been used to keep anyone from employment or exercising the same rights as other citizens of the USA–unless you are speaking to those cases where people sought to join a religious affiliation yet refuse to accept the mandates that regulates their agency/system… could you cite the law that prohibited civil unions in Indiana?

In the United States if you provide a service you can’t discriminate against someone for certain classifications, sexuality being one of them. While I do think the free market can alleviate some problems, allowing prejudice by certain groups only exacerbates the situation.

There is a reason why we have fair housing laws and equal employment to not allow landlords/employers to exclude certain people from homes/jobs. The idea that a person could (in theory) go elsewhere doesn’t make it right (especially when all those in a particular area wish to exclude the same people). This has been going on long before segregation at Woolworth’s counters and will do so well after people like Kim Davis. Taken to the very extreme, for a large part of the 20th century Spain some priests and nuns were vital cogs in the process of taking newborn babies, telling the new mothers that the child died, then passing the babies off to families that were considered more suitable. We need to keep the process of adopting children open and we need to make it fair for all applicants.

I’m ignorant of many things… but I cannot remember a single incident where homosexuals were denied the ability to adopt children from non-religious agencies… and, I may be naïve, but I’ve not heard of a single time where homosexuals mobilized to adopt children who were offered by non-religious agencies.

The same goes to job, and housing issues… other than that actor who made some offhand comments backstage, I’ve never heard of a homosexual issue (and the actor was black bolted and forced to apologize, on national tv, to the whole homosexual community–talk about on-sided).

In my opinion, you are confusing different situations with actual racism against non-Whites, anti-Semitic acts, and anti-Catholic bigotry perpetrated, openly, (from the inception of the nation) by both state and citizenry, in the USA.

As for the issue of Spain, could you cite actual cases–too often the practice of the past is augmented in a bad light as it is forced through biased filters, rendering the events that actually unfolded skewed.

It’s not a matter of who any group gets to assist them so much as who they choose not to assist.

…actually, not; it is a matter of who controls the situation. The Church has never discriminated against the need of Catholics over the need of non-Catholics–and she remains with the people even after the threat of death is upon them.

By the way, do you have anything to add or perhaps retract from your earlier question (and my response) asking whether a country not against the Church would kill their own people. It’s a bit Sean Spicer in my opinion.

…yeah, ignorant of Spicer–but no; just check the daily news and the history of man: a few millions died in the far past and the Church is held as the agent responsible even in spite of the actual events; millions upon millions in the last century alone dead by their own states–and no one speaks on the abuse and oppression… even now we have non-Christians exterminating and oppressing millions upon millions and the world is silent; again, talk about one-sided.

Aren’t Christians curious about the ways of non-Christian faiths? The non-Christian section of CAF would suggest so. This is no different.

Don’t Christians tell non-Christians that they have answers to some of the questions regarding life after death? If so, it’s only reasonable that people – both Christian and non-Christian – who naturally have follow-up questions regarding those alleged answers ask them.

Catholic Answers Live would be pretty quiet each weekday if everyone who believed in Catholicism fully understood every aspect of the faith

I’ve seldom visited those cites… but the argument remains; it is my experience that Catholics (with the exception of the few loose canons) do not engage non-Catholics, from an irate platform, seeking to convert or exterminate!

I think we’re somewhat off track on this thread, so hopefully we can get back to the question of hell.

I concur!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Crusaderbear]

Hell isn’t supposed to confuse you…it’s supposed to SCARE you!

 

[Nelka]

Hell isn’t supposed to confuse you…it’s supposed to SCARE you!

True.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Does God hold a gun to yours or anybody’s head? No. He gave us all memory intellect and free will to use properly.

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

If I say to you don’t speed around a neighborhood, or something terrible will happen. You don’t take the warning. You speed anyway. And you hit and kill a child.

Did I force you to do that? Was I sitting in the back seat forcing you to speed? I merely told you in advance don’t speed or something bad will happen, and you did it anyway ans something terrible did happen. Whose fault is it? Whose going down for the crime? Me for warning you or you who did the crime?

My intellect can easily determine that speeding could kill someone. I have examples where speeding killed someone. 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.

God does the same with all of us. He sets rules in advance. And He says what the consequences are in advance for disobeying the rules. Gee how novel.

Actions have consequences. Again, gee how novel

The mugger does the same with all of us. He sets rules in advance. And he says what the consequences are in advance for disobeying the rules. Gee how novel.

Actions have consequences. Again, gee how novel.

The only difference is I know the mugger is real and the gun is real. 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.

Have you not seen from God, all the warnings of hell in the next life spoken of in scripture if we don’t obey Him in this life?

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

But you don’t have to believe any of that. Just wait for death to see if it is true or not.

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.

I’m saying if you wait till death, that’s taking a galactically stupid chance

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.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I just wanted to mention that many Catholic thinkers absolutely reject the “God of the gaps” line of reasoning. Fr. Coyne, the Jesuit priest and (now retired) astronomer, comes to mind. I don’t want you to walk away from these forums thinking that some of the views herein expressed represent the “only” orthodox Catholic mindset.

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.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!

I’ve never heard of a single case where atheism has been used to keep anyone from employment or exercising the same rights as other citizens of the USA–unless you are speaking to those cases where people sought to join a religious affiliation yet refuse to accept the mandates that regulates their agency/system… could you cite the law that prohibited civil unions in Indiana?
“Indiana marriage law is discriminatory, US court says in ruling for humanists” article from the Christian Science Monitor
“You No Longer Need to Become a Fake Minister to Officiate a Wedding in Indiana” article from Slate.
Both articles explain how those religious who wished to have their wedding ceremony officiated by a member of their religion could do so. It also shows how exceptions were put into place from those religious groups who don’t have clergy, and in some case for those religious groups who don’t have deities. It was only after this case that those non-religious in Indiana could do the same.

I’m ignorant of many things… but I cannot remember a single incident where homosexuals were denied the ability to adopt children from non-religious agencies… and, I may be naïve, but I’ve not heard of a single time where homosexuals mobilized to adopt children who were offered by non-religious agencies.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

…yeah, ignorant of Spicer

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.

–but no; just check the daily news and the history of man: a few millions died in the far past and the Church is held as the agent responsible even in spite of the actual events; millions upon millions in the last century alone dead by their own states–and no one speaks on the abuse and oppression…

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.

even now we have non-Christians exterminating and oppressing millions upon millions and the world is silent; again, talk about one-sided.

Such as?

I’ve seldom visited those cites… but the argument remains; it is my experience that Catholics (with the exception of the few loose canons) do not engage non-Catholics, from an irate platform, seeking to convert or exterminate!

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.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

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.

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

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

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:”

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?

Maran atha!

Angel