Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[mgoforth]

Jeremiah 10:23:
“I know, O LORD, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.”

The true choice you have is between delusion of freedom and wisdom.

*“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” * Philippians 2: 12-13

We could post verses back and forth all day…but it’s not correct to take single verses and build a theology around them in isolation. The Catholic Church gives us the true and full meaning of Scripture. The true meaning is that both of our verses are correct. We are partners in our own salvation, while at the same time God controls everything.

 

[Trurl]

You’re projecting God into time again. God did not have separate periods of planning and creation.

The “outside of time” is a metaphysical nonsense. Any “action” involves a “change”. An action without a change is not an “action”. Any change implies a “before” and an “after”, therefore a “time”. Whoever came up with that “outside time” concept should be ridiculed publicly for being an idiot.

The fact is that “Joe” is/was/will be created at a certain point of time. There is a “before” Joe was created. At that time God allegedly already knows (via omniscience) what Joe’s final fate will be. God is supposed be sovereign, who acts out of his own will, so God can decide whether to create Joe or not. It is cruel (un-loving) to create someone whose final destiny is eternal damnation. There is nothing else that needs to be said. And I am very tired of this nonsense - and, no, it is not a “mystery”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The “outside of time” is a metaphysical nonsense.

This simply means it makes no sense to the mind of Trurl. Trurl cannot figure it out. Which is clearly true.

Now if Trurl could demonstrate that his capacities were sufficient to figure out all the physical and metaphysical mysteries of the universe, and this particular mystery is untenable even as a mystery, then we would be on to something. He hasn’t, so we aren’t. Enough said.

Any “action” involves a “change”. An action without a change is not an “action”. Any change implies a “before” and an “after”, therefore a “time”.

This is true inside of time. However, an extrapolation to outside of time would have to demonstrate warrant. If Big Bang theory is true, then time began 13.7 billion years ago. There does indeed exist an “outside of time” whether a causal sequence is a necessary part of that has not been shown and remains a “mystery.”

Whoever came up with that “outside time” concept should be ridiculed publicly for being an idiot.

Which is to say that it is disturbing to the tidy compartments in Trurl’s brain where he keeps his socks and underwear folded neatly in their proper place.

The fact is that “Joe” is/was/will be created at a certain point of time. There is a “before” Joe was created. At that time God allegedly already knows (via omniscience) what Joe’s final fate will be. God is supposed be sovereign, who acts out of his own will, so God can decide whether to create Joe or not. It is cruel (un-loving) to create someone whose final destiny is eternal damnation. There is nothing else that needs to be said. And I am very tired of this nonsense - and, no, it is not a “mystery”.

That’s the thing about mysteries; they aren’t easy to grapple with. Are you denying there aren’t any mysteries? That you have worked them all out and this one isn’t on your list? If there are mysteries, and given the fact that human minds have limitations, then why couldn’t this one be on the list? Because you say so? It would then become a mystery to me how you could know that there is no “outside of time” from your delimited perspective inside of it.

 

[Trurl]

This simply means it makes no sense to the mind of Trurl. Trurl cannot figure it out.

Now, let’s see how smart “you” are. As a final courtesy, I notify you that you are on my ignore list. Every time you will make a post concerning one of mine, you will prove that you cannot figure out the “mystery” of the ignore list.

 

[Portofino]

I am going to enjoy this dialogue ^_^.
I think we share mutual ground and can get passed some barriers that would otherwise be up.

Definitely – common ground is important For example, I’m not a Nietzschean immoralist who is questioning the value of compassion or of refraining from injury to others (though I did study Nietzsche for many years).

My disagreements with Nietzsche, in a nutshell, are twofold: 1. he believed that morality was “anti-nature” and a denial of the will to live, but he underestimated the role of *natural *sympathy in human behavior (“no beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity”); 2. his own psychology valued strength (power) over weakness, but he failed to identify the weakness that is inherent in cruel behavior (which is often fear-driven and reactive) and, conversely, the strength that is inherent in kind or forgiving behavior (many Christians would agree, I think, that forgiveness is for the inwardly strong). He saw Christ as the ultimate weakling, whereas “loving one’s enemies” is the ultimate in inner strength. All of this can be debated, but can be more or less objectively grounded in terms of p(name removed by moderator)ointing the underlying motivates of human behavior (e.g., “he bullied that person in order to feel better about himself, because he feels bad about himself – which is a form of weakness or lack”).

think if we go back to all of the positive arguments for God, or if we concede to a divine revelation, God’s existence and goodness become evident.

I can experience the qualities of human beings as evidence of transcendent value in the universe, or as a kind of “revelation.” I’m speaking of qualities as basic as charm, humor, or wit; or the smile of a child. The same can go for animals too, of course (canines, for instance). Living creatures seem the best intuitive evidence for transcendence. I’ve sometimes had the thought or the feeling – admittedly subjective – that, “humans – even by virtue of humor, wit, and charm – seem too special or valuable to simply be destroyed with death…” That could be the ultimate in egoism, but it doesn’t feel that way, at times. Still, I acknowledge that it may tell us more about ourselves, then it does about the universe. We just can’t know for sure, but we can certainly hope

we or ought we desire to survive? This is the point of Virtue Ethics, which is a form of Ethics I think you would like.

I do think that the desire for self-preservation and for “happiness” is so fundamental, that denying it is almost as paradoxical as denying’s one’s reasoning mind (e.g., like asking, “why *ought *we not to speak in gibberish?”) Even if someone says, “if I thought my only goal in life were to be happy, I would kill myself”, he would be killing himself – because he is unhappy at the idea. Paradoxically, the idea that there is more to life than being happy – would leave him feeling happy

If one at least grants the desire for happiness to be as foundational to our human makeup as reason itself, then it is much easier to ground certain “objective” guidelines to human behavior, based on the conditional, “if you want to be happy, you ought to…” For example, food and water are good places to start, objectively speaking. Affection, or human contact, is another essential ingredient to happiness (even reading a book is a form of companionship, in absentia; in some ways, it is an even more intimate form of companionship). Cultivating virtues such as patience, gratitude, kindness, self-awareness, can also be argued as essential ingredients of happiness (even though a few of these virtues are traditionally viewed as primarily “altruistic” in nature). In this vein, I recently encountered the saying, “the first to apologize is the bravest. The first to forgive is the strongest. The first to forget is the happiest.” Ethics has been reinforced by psychological insight.

happiest person is the person who is best able to fulfill their “essence” or their purpose as a being. This is why the building of one’s character will lead them to ultimate happiness. Building one’s character is what grows them into the fulfillment of their essence as a human person.

This I agree with. If human beings were reptiles – not mammals – then a social or altruistic ethic likely would not be appropriate to our nature or to our requirements for happiness. There’s something relativistic about this, as well – what’s good for human beings may not be good for non-humans.

could have been created to seek out vice and foolhardy pleasures.

This too I can agree with, in terms of the specific behaviors that you’re referencing with the labels of “vice” and “foolhardiness.” Human beings could be constituted in such a way that indulgence in sex, drugs, or alcohol were the fundamental ingredients to a happy life. Someone like Epicurus acknowledged that, if sensual indulgence did lead to lasting happiness, then virtue would consist in pursuing sensual indulgence to the exclusion of all else. But because he saw evidence to the contrary, he placed other things much higher in terms of being essential ingredients for happiness – emotional bonds and companionship, for example.

 

[Portofino]

Gandhi also had a worldview that Hitler lacked. I agree we ultimately seek happiness as an ultimate end, but I think our sense of happiness is really a sense of fulfillment. How can a human be fulfilled without a telos (end)? In order to have a telos, we must have the proper metaphysics to support a telos. If you have not looked into Virtue Ethics, please do. I think you will like it. (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas for the Christian perspective of the same).

That is a great point about Gandhi having a worldview that Hitler lacked. That is, indeed, a great strength of a religious tradition. It can be the great strength of a philosophy too, I think (e.g., that of the Stoics, or Epicureans). Even Buddhism is at the intersection of religion and philosophy.

It seems that such strength cannot exist without what the Buddhists call “right understanding,” even as regards human behavior alone. For example, if you understand that anger is a self-destructive emotion (that harms you more than it does the person who made you angry) then you will have a motivation to question the value of your anger. And if you understand the likely motives behind why they wanted to make you angry – for example, the significant other who is hurt or feeling neglected and who wants to hurt you as a way of reaching you – then you’re helped in replacing anger with a more thoughtful understanding (or, even, compassion). You are better able to perceive what they are really trying to say, even if they themselves may not be fully aware of it.

Another example is the teacher who encounters recalcitrance from a student, when introducing a new method or task. The student says, “this is stupid; I’m not doing this; this is idiotic.” The teacher can react with impatience and even feel offended or piqued. He might even accuse the student of being lazy. Or he can sense what the student is perhaps really feeling – afraid of trying something new; or afraid that he’s incapable of understanding it; or afraid of failing at it.

Self-awareness – understanding the motives for one’s own behavior – is seemingly the first step. Some insight into the motives of the behavior or others – including others who may be very different from you – is seemingly another.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

The “outside of time” is a metaphysical nonsense. Any “action” involves a “change”. An action without a change is not an “action”. Any change implies a “before” and an “after”, therefore a “time”. Whoever came up with that “outside time” concept should be ridiculed publicly for being an idiot.

Is God slave of time? But in this case, Time is God, not God. Or, God is Time. I respect this idea of God, but it isn’t my (and of Christians, for example) idea of God.

 

[Trurl]

Is God slave of time? But in this case, Time is God, not God. Or, God is Time. I respect this idea of God, but it isn’t my (and of Christians, for example) idea of God.

No, that is not what I say. To exist without some kind of “time” there is only a frozen stasis, and there can be no action in a stasis. Whatever “environment” God dwells in, it cannot be “frozen”, because then there would be no “action”.

This all came out from the discussion that God knows “past, present and future” (see the Catholic Dogmas 36 and 37 jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm )

1. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
2. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)

and as such he knows that a hypothetical “Joe” eventually will end up in hell, and in that case it would not be in Joe’s best interest to create him. The whole “outside of time” is just a derail attempt to try to wiggle out from that question.

 

[tonyrey]

No, that is not what I say. To exist without some kind of “time” there is only a frozen stasis, and there can be no action in a stasis. Whatever “environment” God dwells in, it cannot be “frozen”, because then there would be no “action”.

This all came out from the discussion that God knows “past, present and future” (see the Catholic Dogmas 36 and 37 jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm )

1. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
2. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)

and as such he knows that a hypothetical “Joe” eventually will end up in hell, and in that case it would not be in Joe’s best interest to create him. The whole “outside of time” is just a derail attempt to try to wiggle out from that question.

Hell has its compensations! Otherwise no one would opt for it…

 

[fred_conty]

No, that is not what I say. To exist without some kind of “time” there is only a frozen stasis, and there can be no action in a stasis. Whatever “environment” God dwells in, it cannot be “frozen”, because then there would be no “action”.

This all came out from the discussion that God knows “past, present and future” (see the Catholic Dogmas 36 and 37 jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm )

1. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
2. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)

and as such he knows that a hypothetical “Joe” eventually will end up in hell, and in that case it would not be in Joe’s best interest to create him. The whole “outside of time” is just a derail attempt to try to wiggle out from that question.

Since everyone is welcome on this forum, I would like to explain to help shed a little light.

This denies that Joe still has freedom of choice of what he wants to do with his life.
I believe that freedom of choice is exorcised in all the little everyday ones a person makes.
The person establishes a pattern over time, either toward good or toward bad, almost in many cases imperceptibly and gradually. Until there comes a time with age the person finds themselves estranged from God, or not knowing God, and then at the end, they just see no reason to chose any differently than they have all along. The motivation to be different and to want something different at the last is simply not there. And they die without making that free choice for God and for good. Dying is also a part of our life and we make that decision like we have made all the rest. And if a person has lived their life without God, then there would be no reason for him to live with a total stranger in the next. So he would not make the choice either deliberately or of not making a choice at that moment and would default to the choices of his life. If he dosn’t know God, why would he chose him?

But we as christians say that nothing is impossible to God. And God could so move and motivate that person to see Jesus and his life for what it is, and to make an act of wanting God at the end. As christians we realize that our prayers for that person can be fullfilled thru the help of the Holy Spirit even when all hope seems gone. And a last moment change is possible. But of course this is not best to leave this to the end, for many are not reversed at the end, for good or for bad.

In the case of Joe, he was created not only by God, but by his parents, who are co-makers.
No child, or person, comes into this world thru only God’s will but with the co-opeation of two people. And this child is not just the responsiblity of the parents alone, but of society’s as well. For tho it may well be that the parents bring a child into this world, it takes the whole village to bring him up in this world. So in some way, ALL of us share in responsiblility for Joe’s wellbeing, existence, and end.

As far as understanding God’s will, this is a topic that has never been settled, and is difficult to juggle with man’s freedom, grace, and God’s providence.

But it seems to me that when he made us with freedom, then God let’s go to some degree of his control. That dosen’t mean that he can’t still do anything. But it is inside of his own will to let go ti us and therefore he let’s us make free choices because that is exactly what he gave us and the nature of man to do. So in that way we can say that what we do is exorcising not only our own freedom but also the will of God, both in good and bad. This does not in any way mean he approves of the bad , but that it is within his will for us to act within our very own nature. Otherwise we would not have created man but some other sort of creature.

So in the end, God respect’s a man’s choice, for good or bad, and will not go against his choice. The christian has a great advantage of God’s special help of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who enters their life and strengthens all their choices towards good so that their end choice will also match their good choices.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Trurl]

This denies that Joe still has freedom of choice of what he wants to do with his life.

Not according to the catholic teaching. The teaching says that Joe is free to do whatever he wants, but when it comes to the final assessment, he will have missed the mark, and will be placed to hell for eternal damnation. It is asserted that God’s foreknowledge in no way influences Joe’s freedom. (See the quotes from the dogmas). And maybe “Joe”-s creation is a cooperative effort of Joe’s parents and God, but no matter what Joe’s parents want, without God “creating” Joe’s soul, there will be no “Joe”. As such the final responsibility for Joe, and for Joe’s eventual fate rests with God.

God’s assumed “love” means that he will act in the best interest of the loved ones. It is definitely not in Joe’s best interest to be created under these circumstances. That is all.

And if a person has lived their life without God, then there would be no reason for him to live with a total stranger in the next.

I would like to reflect on this and the rest of your post, but it would derail thread, so … maybe some other time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is God slave of time? But in this case, Time is God, not God. Or, God is Time. I respect this idea of God, but it isn’t my (and of Christians, for example) idea of God.

This is a good point. God being outside of time, if it means anything, is that God is outside the limitations of time. He is not limited or constrained by time. Creating time, changing the nature of time, speeding up or slowing down time, working backwards through time, etc. in whatever form necessary could very well be part of what being the “Lord” of time, and more extensively of all that is, means. Of course, it also means that God could work in time but be metaphysically unconstrained by it. He can if he chooses act under time constraints, but need not. So time could be a constraining feature of the actions of God, if he allows it to be

However, whether this answers the objections of the mysterious, “he who shall not be named,” lest I provoke another backlash, is another question.

Being beyond the limitations of time, i.e., not having time as a limitation, would entail that for God acting in time, whether in the past, present or future, would make no substantial difference to him. So his knowing my future destiny only means that he could, out of his goodness, alter the past to make possible a different destiny for me rather than merely not create me. If he is all good then he would do that. So, in effect, to God, each human with personhood, is a kind of encompassed whole entirely available to him from an eternal perspective. That would mean “me” as a possibility is no different from “me” as an actuality. God couldn’t “tentatively” conceive of you then based on possibilities, rescind his creation of you. His creation of you, as a free being, in the dynamic relationship with him that defines who you are, including your freely determined responses to him, would entail your destiny.

Generally, though, if God is “Goodness itself” and all knowing, etc., then any determination through time that he would make for each of us would necessarily be in our best interest. Therefore, if our destiny is anything but blessed, it could only be that because it was freely determined by our will and action, due to completely abdicating the continued action of his grace in our lives. A deliberate refusal to harmonize ourselves with grace is what places us beyond God’s will for us, which would be the definition of hell: being outside the benevolent and creative will of God. I think CS Lewis called facing this possibility, the “weight of glory.” Saint Paul referred to it as working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Of course, mystery necessarily clouds this whole idea because, as human beings located in a space-time delineated universe, we are constrained in our understanding by the limitations of time.

 

[Shlomo]

…
In other words, Hell is something God allows us to choose freely - even though He hopes that none of us will make that choice - because He loves us infinitely.

If so, what is the difference between “infinite love” and justice?

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

No, that is not what I say. To exist without some kind of “time” there is only a frozen stasis, and there can be no action in a stasis. Whatever “environment” God dwells in, it cannot be “frozen”, because then there would be no “action”.

In any case existing with some kind of time is to depend on that kind of time. If one likes to think that God is only in the flux of some kind of “time”, God + time is in his faith, not God only. Well, this is his idea of God. It isn’t the Christian idea of God, also for an example I know a little better. The reason isn’t of great use to examine how God works with time; if God is the only creator and master of any universe could exist or can be thought, any kind of time is inferior to God. He is master of any kind of time we can think to. Frozen-fluent, action and inaction are human dualities, for us who live in this world created. Moreover, also astrophysics say that time, for what we can say of it, is relative… In a Black Hole, for example, the time of our universe (and any image of the time we can make ourselves, image that must come out from the time we experiment) disappears.

 

[Portofino]

This conversation about freely choosing hell reminds me of microeconomic models that are based on the assumption that the consumer has “perfect information.”

Which begs the question, in regards to heaven versus hell – do human beings have “perfect information?” And if they do, do they have perfect *recognition *of this information? Your freedom is limited by the quality of information that you are acting on.

For example, if you were told that eternal bliss was behind “door one” and eternal damnation was behind “door two,” you might freely choose to open door one; however, what if it turns out that you had your facts mixed up? What if behind “door one” was eternal damnation and behind “door two” eternal bliss?

In that case, your “free choice” is qualified by the fact that you chose door one, but you didn’t choose the eternal damnation that was behind door one. You made an uninformed decision.

I suppose the wild card in this aspect of Catholic doctrine is the notion of “invincible ignorance.” Assuming humans beings are not infallible and do not have infallible understanding – which is a given – one would hope that a just God would provide some leeway for uninformed decision-making!

I do sometimes, however, get the sense that there is the assumption that – deep down – almost everyone does have perfect knowledge not only that heaven exists and hell exists, but of what will land you there; and, especially, that this is perfectly known by those who have been “told” (inevitably, by other human beings) what’s behind “door one” and “door two” (e.g., someone raised Catholic, or who has read the Bible cover-to-cover, cannot plead ‘invincible ignorane’). This is a rather big assumption, however, especially given the nearly infinite number of “categories of human confusion” (assuming these church doctrines are the absolute truth).

Here’s more on “perfect knowledge” (from wikipedia), as regards consumers buying a product :

In microeconomics, a state of perfect information is assumed in some models of perfect competition. That is, assuming that all agents are rational and have perfect information, they will choose the best products, and the market will reward those who make the best products with higher sales. Perfect information would practically mean that all consumers know all things, about all products, at all times (including knowing the probabilistic outcome of all future events), and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase. This is physically impossible, however, as the Bekenstein Bound provides a physical limit to the amount of information that can be stored in a given physical system (in this case, a market participant). Still, perfect information is a common assumption in economic models because it allows mathematical derivation of desirable results.

The pervasive effects of information asymmetry in markets have been documented and studied in numerous contexts. In his 2001 Nobel Prize lecture, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz spoke to the faults of standard economic models and the faulty policy implications and recommendations that arise from their unrealistic assumptions, writing:
‘I only varied one assumption – the assumption concerning perfect information – and in ways which seemed highly plausible. … We succeeded in showing not only that the standard theory was not robust – changing only one assumption in ways which were totally plausible had drastic consequences, but also that an alternative robust paradigm with great explanatory power could be constructed.’"

 

[fred_conty]

This conversation about freely choosing hell reminds me of microeconomic models that are based on the assumption that the consumer has “perfect information.”

Which begs the question, in regards to heaven versus hell – do human beings have “perfect information?” And if they do, do they have perfect *recognition *of this information? Your freedom is limited by the quality of information that you are acting on.

For example, if you were told that eternal bliss was behind “door one” and eternal damnation was behind “door two,” you might freely choose to open door one; however, what if it turns out that you had your facts mixed up? What if behind “door one” was eternal damnation and behind “door two” eternal bliss?

In that case, your “free choice” is qualified by the fact that you chose door one, but you didn’t choose the eternal damnation that was behind door one. You made an uninformed decision.

I suppose the wild card in this aspect of Catholic doctrine is the notion of “invincible ignorance.” Assuming humans beings are not infallible and do not have infallible understanding – which is a given – one would hope that a just God would provide some leeway for uninformed decision-making!

I do sometimes, however, get the sense that there is the assumption that – deep down – almost everyone does have perfect knowledge not only that heaven exists and hell exists, but of what will land you there; and, especially, that this is perfectly known by those who have been “told” (inevitably, by other human beings) what’s behind “door one” and “door two” (e.g., someone raised Catholic, or who has read the Bible cover-to-cover, cannot plead ‘invincible ignorane’). This is a rather big assumption, however, especially given the nearly infinite number of “categories of human confusion” (assuming these church doctrines are the absolute truth).

Here’s more on “perfect knowledge” (from wikipedia), as regards consumers buying a product :

In microeconomics, a state of perfect information is assumed in some models of perfect competition. That is, assuming that all agents are rational and have perfect information, they will choose the best products, and the market will reward those who make the best products with higher sales. Perfect information would practically mean that all consumers know all things, about all products, at all times (including knowing the probabilistic outcome of all future events), and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase. This is physically impossible, however, as the Bekenstein Bound provides a physical limit to the amount of information that can be stored in a given physical system (in this case, a market participant). Still, perfect information is a common assumption in economic models because it allows mathematical derivation of desirable results.

The pervasive effects of information asymmetry in markets have been documented and studied in numerous contexts. In his 2001 Nobel Prize lecture, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz spoke to the faults of standard economic models and the faulty policy implications and recommendations that arise from their unrealistic assumptions, writing:
‘I only varied one assumption – the assumption concerning perfect information – and in ways which seemed highly plausible. … We succeeded in showing not only that the standard theory was not robust – changing only one assumption in ways which were totally plausible had drastic consequences, but also that an alternative robust paradigm with great explanatory power could be constructed.’"

The example of doors is exactly right. Only the two doors represent good choices and bad choices of our everyday life. For the person enters death in the way he managed life, for the most part.

If the person is uninformed, then he has an obligation to find out the truth before deciding even tho he may not feel like doing so. And if he is misinformed after a careful inquiry, then the bad choice can very well be turning into a good choice since the intention is what makes the act good or bad in the mind of God.

Of course perfect knowledge dosen’t exist except in the mind of God. But there is a reasonable knowledge which, more often than not, can be attained with a little effort. And if this is not available, then our conscience must make the best judgement from the light of other truths.

Just some thoughts.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

My ethical foundation is solid. I already elaborated on the details.

An objectively subjective foundation is not “solid.” Nothing you’ve said about morality would deem God immoral. At best you can say its undesirable for you but that’s all. God preserves His self-interest. If morality is not causing unnecessary suffering, I believe you’ve conceded that there is no possible way you could know that the suffering we see is unnecessary. Also, at first you accused me of special pleading. Yet, by your moral view, every person, or at least every culture, has their own “objectively subjective” moral beliefs. You’re saying morality for group A is different than morality for group B. This is not special pleading?

I do not differentiate. You did. In my eyes, the will to do something is irrelevant, if one is unable to act on that will. And this is the world where you can want anything and everything and most of them are unattainable to you. Why is that a problem?

Right, I simply meant that one could differentiate. I was not trying to make an accusation. The problem is meaninglessness. The problem is having desires, not just evil but good, that cannot be fulfilled. The problem is that I do not see how someone can will an action that does not exist. It is also a problem because it rids us of other goods. I suppose this is an interesting thought, but I’m not sure its tenable. I somewhat wonder what it would mean to have a will that was unable of action and whether a will could exist apart from potential to act.

That does not follow at all.

Sure it does. The ability to tell the truth give, along with free will, gives me the ability to lie. I suppose I could be stripped of my free will, but that would forfeit moral agency. I can only act courageously if I could have the option to act fearful. As far as things like killing and rape, I think the same could be said with more factors, making it a more complicated. Question, is your problem with murder and rape or suffering? If Murder existed, and rape existed, but suffering did not would it still be immoral to murder and rape? Or is it only the suffering aspect that makes such activity evil?

Nope, that does not follow either. The ability to do good is diminished, for the lack of personal presence, but that is a small price to pay. Besides, these are simply technical squabblings. Theoretically there can be an implant, which would monitor the criminal’s planned activities, and prevent them when they are detrimental to others, but let them go through if they are beneficial. Mind you such implants would be only needed for the criminals.

The analogy breaks down. We are not talking about select few humans, we are talking about mankind. Ad a monitor cannot prevent human activity in the same way. We are not talking about an external limiting of actions. We are talking about a conceptual termination of the very option or potential itself. So you’re saying that it would be better to terminate the exist of mankind then to give them the option for evil which, ultimately, would only affect mankind. And this would be good?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Except for another contradiction; namely the church teaches that “the end does not justify the means”. And also: “that no good can come out of evil”. Going back to the “spanking”. There are much better (more effective) ways to raise a child than to grab a belt an beat him. Of course in the biblical times there was no child-psychology, hence the “do not spare the rod”.

Its not ends justifies the means. That would be saying that free will and moral agency is the end and it is not. Good and Evil is the ends of the mean of Free Will. You are saying that God should not do a good action because it has the potential to leads to evil, though it also has the potential to lead to good. Ultimately, through His providence, it wall all end up being ultimately good. God did not do anything evil in making free will, for I believe that free will is a good thing of itself. The fact that human beings can choose evil does not mean free will is good. Free will doesn’t kill people, people kill people… or something like that Also, I explicitly said that I did not use the analogy in the sense of punishment. I can still watch my child suffer socially or in some other way in order to allow them to figure things out for their self and learn how to deal with or overcome that obstacle. That is not incoherent with child psychology, though it is besides the point.

There are simple tribal societies where none of those behaviors are taboo, and there is no harm to the people or the children. What you say is all “cultural”. Public nudity is perfectly acceptable in nudist colonies. All those sexual hang-ups which we can observe in the Moral Theology forum are the result of the twisted view of sexuality propagated by some (not all, only the super-orthodox ones) in the church. As the old saying goes (somewhat paraphrased): “For catholics sex is an obsession. For everyone else it is a simple fact of life”.

1. True. The extermination of the Jews could have been seen as “good” to Hitler. Simply put, people can be wrong. Aristotle thought pride was a virtue and humility was a vice. I disagree, but that is because his metaphysics and worldview were (in my view) wrong, thus his ethics were as well. Murder is perfectly acceptable in Assassin’s guilds :-/. Just people can be mistaken about Ethics does not mean there aren’t objective ethics or virtues.
2. Cute saying, but I hope you don’t believe its true. Are secular American society is uber obsessed with sex. And it really is not twisted nor are they “hang-ups.” They’re pretty practical. Unless you think Monogamy, chastity, modesty, etc are indecent. Unless you refer to contraception or celibacy, but I do not see how that is twisted.

What is adultery? If it is the break of a promise, then yes, that would be wrong. But in your view even mutally agreed upon “infidelity” (open marriage) would be “adultery”.

You are correct. That is because I have a foundationally different view of sex and marriage as you do.

As long as actions do not hurt others - was the basic premise. Robbery clearly does not fall into this category. There are always gray areas, where a lot of contemplation is needed, after all the world is not black and white. But there can be no question about the benefits that we all would enjoy if rape, torture, murder would be “removed” from the world - and to hell with the freedom of the criminals.

I agree, but I don’t think it would truly be a benefit if God removed them in the way that you are suggesting. Don’t forget that you are just as much a criminal as anybody else. Last time I checked, there are other immoral actions.

Criminals are punished because of their freedom. No one is a criminal until after they commit a crime. So, hell is a good thing isn’t it? Thought I believe hell to be something other than eternal punishment by torture.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

This conversation about freely choosing hell reminds me of microeconomic models that are based on the assumption that the consumer has “perfect information.”

Which begs the question, in regards to heaven versus hell – do human beings have “perfect information?” And if they do, do they have perfect *recognition *of this information? Your freedom is limited by the quality of information that you are acting on.

For example, if you were told that eternal bliss was behind “door one” and eternal damnation was behind “door two,” you might freely choose to open door one; however, what if it turns out that you had your facts mixed up? What if behind “door one” was eternal damnation and behind “door two” eternal bliss?

In that case, your “free choice” is qualified by the fact that you chose door one, but you didn’t choose the eternal damnation that was behind door one. You made an uninformed decision.

I suppose the wild card in this aspect of Catholic doctrine is the notion of “invincible ignorance.” Assuming humans beings are not infallible and do not have infallible understanding – which is a given – one would hope that a just God would provide some leeway for uninformed decision-making!

I do sometimes, however, get the sense that there is the assumption that – deep down – almost everyone does have perfect knowledge not only that heaven exists and hell exists, but of what will land you there; and, especially, that this is perfectly known by those who have been “told” (inevitably, by other human beings) what’s behind “door one” and “door two” (e.g., someone raised Catholic, or who has read the Bible cover-to-cover, cannot plead ‘invincible ignorane’). This is a rather big assumption, however, especially given the nearly infinite number of “categories of human confusion” (assuming these church doctrines are the absolute truth).

Here’s more on “perfect knowledge” (from wikipedia), as regards consumers buying a product :

In microeconomics, a state of perfect information is assumed in some models of perfect competition. That is, assuming that all agents are rational and have perfect information, they will choose the best products, and the market will reward those who make the best products with higher sales. Perfect information would practically mean that all consumers know all things, about all products, at all times (including knowing the probabilistic outcome of all future events), and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase. This is physically impossible, however, as the Bekenstein Bound provides a physical limit to the amount of information that can be stored in a given physical system (in this case, a market participant). Still, perfect information is a common assumption in economic models because it allows mathematical derivation of desirable results.

The pervasive effects of information asymmetry in markets have been documented and studied in numerous contexts. In his 2001 Nobel Prize lecture, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz spoke to the faults of standard economic models and the faulty policy implications and recommendations that arise from their unrealistic assumptions, writing:
‘I only varied one assumption – the assumption concerning perfect information – and in ways which seemed highly plausible. … We succeeded in showing not only that the standard theory was not robust – changing only one assumption in ways which were totally plausible had drastic consequences, but also that an alternative robust paradigm with great explanatory power could be constructed.’"

Theologically speaking, Jesus tells Peter that he realizes who Jesus is, not because man told him, but because it was revealed to him by the Father (through the Holy Spirit).

Salvation and the deep, revelatory knowledge of it can only come from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps people who hear the Gospel and reject it are, in some way, rejecting the Holy Spirit. Or, perhaps the Spirit does not reveal knowledge of salvation to a person. that person might be judged according to their works. However, it is assumed that no man has achieved the level of moral excellence needed to obtain what they would get from the knowledge of salvation. All are deserving of hell, though some obtain mercy through repentance, discipline, and devotion. I think this would be an orthodox understanding, though liberals may say something very different–even to the point of universalism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do sometimes, however, get the sense that there is the assumption that – deep down – almost everyone does have perfect knowledge not only that heaven exists and hell exists, but of what will land you there; and, especially, that this is perfectly known by those who have been “told” (inevitably, by other human beings) what’s behind “door one” and “door two” (e.g., someone raised Catholic, or who has read the Bible cover-to-cover, cannot plead ‘invincible ignorane’). This is a rather big assumption, however, especially given the nearly infinite number of “categories of human confusion” (assuming these church doctrines are the absolute truth).

Perhaps not so much a perfectly actualized knowledge, but how about authenticity, sincerity or integrity? In biblical terms this would be purity of heart: an integral oneness with your own true being. Being guileless, in other words. Surely “being yourself” at the deepest possible level should be attainable to everyone but not require perfect knowledge. Could God hold someone responsible for not being “true to yourself?” For abdicating themselves?

It may not be choosing doors, but choosing truth in an existential sense, consistently through time. Being duplicitous or making self-alienating choices may lead to some kind of internal fissure and separation from self and from God.

Thus, hell may not be an inherently objective state, problem or choice, but a deeply and inherently subjective one that stems from objective antecedents or could lead to objective consequences.