Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[mgoforth]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Are you seriously suggesting that someone, with a devout faith, which they practiced and kept to the end, receiving the sacraments, confessing their sins, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and so on, who never suffered any real hardship in this life comparatively speaking, and lived a good standard of living, can’t reach heaven because God didn’t make them suffer enough You can’t seriously mean that.

What is suffering enough? It’s not an objective standard, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Doing all the things you listed above to the best of one’s ability would require great suffering. Confessing our sins is embarassing…that’s suffering. Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked is humbling and stirs up feelings of sadness in us for these people…also suffering. At times we wish we could do more for them, but instead we do all that we can and then have patience and faith in God while we watch them suffer through the things that we can’t solve for them…that’s suffering with our neighbors. If those are all the hardships that God allows us to experience, and we don’t purposefully avoid any of the suffering He allows that might be beneficial for our souls, then I have confidence that God will be thoroughly satisfied with our efforts. He doesn’t expect us all to be martyrs in the literal sense, but definitely in the spiritual sense.

So, no. I don’t think I was saying it the way you thought. Please read about St. Theresa of the Child Jesus who wished that she could endure great sufferings for the glory of Christ, but due to the rule of her order (Carmelites) which promotes solitude and prayer she had to content herself with smaller sufferings. She saw that it was God’s will for her to extract as much value from life’s everyday inconveniences as possible.

The Bible quotes you gave just say to me the same excuses for the lack of love shown by God have been made for over 2000 years.

It’s really simple and straightforward to me.

Anyone, with any humanity in them, who knew the whereabouts of the McCann’s child, would end that desperate family’s suffering right now. That would be the right, the moral, thing to do.

Anyone with this knowledge, who stood by and did nothing, and watched this family suffer unimaginable pain, is, in my opinion, a monster.

God, who does know where Madelaine is, chooses not to end their suffering.

So believers are left making excuses for God’s inactivity, calling it profound love and testing by fire and all the rest. But it’s just excuses.

To me, it means one of two things only:

God isn’t ending this family’s suffering, because He can’t. He’s not there.

or

God is utterly and completely detatched from human suffering, and can not relate to human pain and anguish. God is detatched, disinterested, and uncaring, and certainly not a loving, parental, fatherly God.

You know my response. No need for us to go round and round I guess.

 

[atheistgirl]

Confessing our sins is embarassing…that’s suffering.

I had the wrong idea about that. I thought it was something Christians looked forward to, and even enjoyed, since it put them right with God, surely the greatest thing, and ensured their mortal sins were absolved, so were they to die soon after, they’d have a better chance of Heaven.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

I had the wrong idea about that. I thought it was something Christians looked forward to, and even enjoyed, since it put them right with God, surely the greatest thing, and ensured their mortal sins were absolved, so were they to die soon after, they’d have a better chance of Heaven.

Sarah x

It’s both. After a good Confession there’s usually a feeling of relief at being reunited with God (it’s also known as the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and a happy determination to try harder to avoid sin. But during a good Confession we should definitely be suffering. Again, there’s no objective standard. I’m not saying that everyone should be brought to tears by the process (although it certainly happens), but at the very least we should feel shame and embarrassment about what we’ve done. If it’s too easy, I think that’s a sign that either 1) we don’t realize how much we’ve hurt God or 2) we’re not truly sorry. And I’ve definitely been guilty of going through the motions myself.

So think about this: Imagine revealing something that your mind tells you is intensely private, something that you would never say out loud to your friends or family because you’re afraid they would be shocked, embarrassed or disgusted. Whatever that might be for you, even if it’s not something you’ve actually done before. That’s what it’s going to feel like.

Hopefully everyone who goes to Confession knows that the priest is there to help them, not to judge them or make them feel worse…and hopefully everyone has a good priest like that! But it’s still hard for anyone to admit sins when they’ve reflected on them and know that Christ was tortured because of their selfishness.

Confession is necessary suffering, and it’s pleasing to God…not in a sadistic manner, but because it shows that we desire to please Him more than we value our own feelings. It’s the kind of pride that all parents must feel when their child humbly says they’re sorry and promises to try harder next time. God is proud of us for making a good Confession.

 

[Xuan]

Sorry, I thought we had been discussing it? I feel like I’ve told you that God respects our choices even if they are bad for us. You responded that He wouldn’t do that because He knows that those bad decisions are not the correct ultimate decision, and I read your perspective that perfect love requires God to violate our free will when we fail to heed His clear warnings. I don’t agree with that, and I promise you the Church doesn’t either.

What else would you like to discuss?

Hi mgoforth,

My posts here were about the afterlife, not this life. I was hoping you could explain the apparent dichotomy between having infinite love for someone and allowing him to remain in hell forever, rather than just repeating it. The best I could get from your post is that His love is curtailed by His respect for our free will, even after death.

Thanks anyway,
Xuan

 

[mgoforth]

Hi mgoforth,

My posts here were about the afterlife, not this life. I was hoping you could explain the apparent dichotomy between having infinite love for someone and allowing him to remain in hell forever, rather than just repeating it. The best I could get from your post is that His love is curtailed by His respect for our free will, even after death.

Thanks anyway,
Xuan

So by “just repeating it” you mean that if we decide that we don’t want to be with God, that He should force us to start over and keep living until we change our minds? That’s not free will. Don’t you value your free will, Xuan? Would you rather be a machine with no choice? Because that’s basically what you’re asking for. God made us in His image, which means we make choices and get to decide for ourselves what we want.

 

[Portofino]

That hell exists because God loves us and respects our free will *could * be plausible to me if hell were not eternal and if repentance were not impossible in hell.

If repentance is not possible in hell, it means that there is no longer any free will to be respected. For if free will were respected, even in hell, then hell would not necessarily be eternal (because God loves you and respects your free will, meaning that–in principle–you could be lifted out of hell at any time).

But, apparently, one of the things you lose when you go to hell is your free will.

I have to admit, I’ve met a lot of people who think they are not followers of God; a lot of people who think they don’t care about living a good and holy life; but never have I met someone who wanted to relinquish his free will for an eternity.

 

[jimmy]

Amen! He gave us a choice because He loves us!

That is a hard answer to swallow. He gave us a choice between heaven and hell? He created hell so that we could choose? Would you give your son a choice between playing with a loaded gun and not playing with a loaded gun? Would you call it love if you gave your 8 year old son a loaded gun to play with? ‘go know yourself out jr.’

 

[mgoforth]

That hell exists because God loves us and respects our free will *could * be plausible to me if hell were not eternal and if repentance were not impossible in hell.

If repentance is not possible in hell, it means that there is no longer any free will to be respected. For if free will were respected, even in hell, then hell would not necessarily be eternal (because God loves you and respects your free will, meaning that–in principle–you could be lifted out of hell at any time).

But, apparently, one of the things you lose when you go to hell is your free will.

I have to admit, I’ve met a lot of people who think they are not followers of God; a lot of people who think they don’t care about living a good and holy life; but never have I met someone who wanted to relinquish his free will for an eternity.

I hope I never implied that we will have free will once we’re in Hell. That’s not Church teaching AFAIK. It wouldn’t make much sense to me either. My point is that we have free will now, and we’re actively making a choice with our actions that will have permanent consequences.

 

[jimmy]

I hope I never implied that we will have free will once we’re in Hell. That’s not Church teaching AFAIK. It wouldn’t make much sense to me either. My point is that we have free will now, and we’re actively making a choice with our actions that will have permanent consequences.

How does that make any sense? You claim that God gives us free will because he loves us and doesn’t want us to be forced into loving him, but turn around and say that gift is removed once someone dies. The consequence of your idea is that God perpetuates evil. Someone who has supposedly chosen to sin has his sins perpetuated for all time by God.

 

[mgoforth]

That is a hard answer to swallow. He gave us a choice between heaven and hell? He created hell so that we could choose? Would you give your son a choice between playing with a loaded gun and not playing with a loaded gun? Would you call it love if you gave your 8 year old son a loaded gun to play with? ‘go know yourself out jr.’

Do Maronite Catholics not believe that we have a choice between Heaven and Hell? I don’t think the gun analogy is really accurate. I like this one better: link

 

[mgoforth]

How does that make any sense? You claim that God gives us free will because he loves us and doesn’t want us to be forced into loving him, but turn around and say that gift is removed once someone dies. The consequence of your idea is that God perpetuates evil. Someone who has supposedly chosen to sin has his sins perpetuated for all time by God.

What is mortal sin, Jimmy? Isn’t it when we look God in the face, so to speak, and say “I know you say this is seriously wrong, and I’ve been told what the consequences will be. I’m going to do it anyway”. Ask and ye shall receive.

Yes, there is a time limit on the gift. I’m glad of that, because I would like to go to Heaven when my time is up, rather than living here forever. If we got an infinite number of chances to make the right choice, then we’d all be stuck here on Earth for eternity. :nope: That’s not for me.

 

[jimmy]

What is mortal sin, Jimmy? Isn’t it when we look God in the face, so to speak, and say “I know you say this is seriously wrong, and I’ve been told what the consequences will be. I’m going to do it anyway”. Ask and ye shall receive.

Yes, there is a time limit on the gift. I’m glad of that, because I would like to go to Heaven when my time is up, rather than living here forever. If we got an infinite number of chances to make the right choice, then we’d all be stuck here on Earth for eternity. :nope: That’s not for me.

How is it good in the first place if it is good that it is removed?

 

[jimmy]

Do Maronite Catholics not believe that we have a choice between Heaven and Hell? I don’t think the gun analogy is really accurate. I like this one better: link

Don’t assume that I speak for the Maronites in all my posts. I only speak for myself. This is the philosophy forum too, not theology.

I don’t deny free will, but to structure it as if hell exists because God loves us makes no sense. Especially when you combine it with the other post about free will being removed. No parent would exile their son and remove all potential to repent or change. And they wouldn’t go on to call that exile love.

 

[mgoforth]

How is it good in the first place if it is good that it is removed?

Are you referring to free will? That goes back to my original question - would you rather be a human with free will now and at least some time to decide where you’ll spend eternity, or an animal who never gets the choice?

 

[mgoforth]

Don’t assume that I speak for the Maronites in all my posts. I only speak for myself. This is the philosophy forum too, not theology.

Fair enough.

I don’t deny free will, but to structure it as if hell exists because God loves us makes no sense. Especially when you combine it with the other post about free will being removed. No parent would exile their son and remove all potential to repent or change. And they wouldn’t go on to call that exile love.

What you’re saying reminds me of a sad series of events that took place in my own family recently. My cousin is in the midst of a mental breakdown. She’s been unemployed for several years and until recently was living with her mother. They argue a lot and my cousin has always been a bit of a spoiled brat, even before the mental health issues appeared. A couple months ago, she started to get violent during these arguments, breaking pictures and windows, threatening my aunt and just generally acting crazy. Finally my aunt had enough and called the police.

When the officer got there and saw my cousin standing barefoot and bleeding in the broken glass from a window she’d just smashed, she gave her a simple choice. She could either go to the hospital to get bandaged up and take some time to calm down, or she could go to jail. My cousin replied, “I don’t like those options. What’s my third option?” Her typical spoiled self. The officer actually gave her several chances to pick one, but in the end she got arrested. Then of course as they were putting the cuffs on her, she quickly changed her mind and said she’d go to the hospital. Too late - she spent the night in jail.

Now I’m not saying you have the same mental issues, but whether we like the options for where we spend eternity or not, they are the only options. Now is the time we’re given to make a choice. God gives us many more opportunities than the kind police officer gave my cousin. And no, there is no third option. If we’re obstinate to the end of our lives and try to pretend that we don’t have to choose between Heaven and Hell…we’ll probably go to Hell.

PS - Please pray for my cousin who has a tough road ahead of her and currently refuses to take medications or do much of anything to help herself get better.

 

[atheistgirl]

What’s my third option?" Her typical spoiled self. The officer actually gave her several chances to pick one, but in the end she got arrested. Then of course as they were putting the cuffs on her, she quickly changed her mind and said she’d go to the hospital. Too late - she spent the night in jail.

First, I’m sorry to hear about the issues your cousin is having and I hope she’s getting the treatment she needs to feel well again.

Second, your cousin was right in saying she doesn’t like those options and she wasn’t being her ‘‘typical spoilt self’’ in saying so.

In the middle of a psychiatric breakdown the two options presented, jail or hospital, were probably terrifying to her, even though one was where she may have got the help she needed.

Other options are available, and probably more in keeping with her needs at the time, but the officer only gave her two, and the two that she would find least helpful and most terrifying.

I can understand this with real time constraints placed on the officer and she doesn’t have all night to spend with your cousin talking her down and convincing her to take her medication.

But the fact remains your cousin wasn’t being ‘‘spolit’’ when she said she didn’t like either option offered. And neither hospital or jail are designed to meet her mental health needs, which is what she needs addressed.

For clarity, I’m not saying your aunt did the wrong thing. She may have felt it was the only option available to her. I’m sure it must have broke her heart to have to call the police on her daughter, and to see her taken away in handcuffs.

All I’m saying is the choices given in such a situation are not necessarily either the only choices, or the best or right choices.

Forcing someone to chose between two choices neither of which they see any merit in, raizes serious questions in my mind. That’s all I’m saying.

And so it is with hell. No one, absolutely no one, makes a decision to go to hell.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Other options are available, and probably more in keeping with her needs at the time, but the officer only gave her two, and the two that she would find least helpful and most terrifying.

I can understand this with real time constraints placed on the officer and she doesn’t have all night to spend with your cousin talking her down and convincing her to take her medication.

But the fact remains your cousin wasn’t being ‘‘spolit’’ when she said she didn’t like either option offered. And neither hospital or jail are designed to meet her mental health needs, which is what she needs addressed.

We have a difference of opinion on this. Knowing my cousin as I do, this is typical of her refusal to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong in her life along with disrespect for authority figures. I love her, but she definitely was spoiled growing up, as were her brother and sister. This is not a new attitude, and it began long before the mental health issues. I don’t mean to bash her on this thread, but I think this incident is analogous in a certain way to what we’re talking about.

I have great sympathy for what she’s going through. I know these issues are a struggle for her, but she doesn’t seem to be psychotic or completely incapable of telling right from wrong…so my sympathy has limits. Of course she didn’t want to go to jail or the hospital, but those were the choices given to her by someone with the authority to enforce them. I don’t think she was terrified until after the cuffs went on. At first she was angry with the officer for telling her what to do. My father said she had her typical “I think this is all a game, and I’m going to talk my way out of it” smile on her face as she responded to the cop.

Yes, my aunt is also having a very hard time with this. She didn’t want to call the police or any of the other things that she’s had to do. It’s been pretty draining for her for a long time.

Again, the point I’m trying to make is that like it or not, there are certain things we can’t talk our way out of. When it comes to Heaven or Hell, we must choose…and choosing not to choose is itself a choice.

 

[meme1961]

Yes, the person who abducted her exercised their free will. So God doesn’t have to worry about that. Free will was exercised, to do an evil act.

Nope. To me, when God knows where this child is, and could have ended their suffering years ago, but chose not to, that’s nothing but continuing the torture of this desperate family.

Your reasoning is based on three faulty premises, thus your conclusion is not rational unless you do not believe in free will.

Which begs the question: do you believe in free will, or are we, in your belief system, just wind-up toys that only have the illusion of choice?

For me, if I knew where a child was, and did nothing about it, didn’t even leave a note for the police to point them in the right direction, would that be moral? Of course not. Not only would it be immoral, but were the police to discover I had information that could have helped the inquiry, but witheld it, I could be charged and convicted of obstruction.

Would would anyone think of someone who, when this child is found, admits they knew all along where this child was, but chose not to share this information with anyone. Information that could have ended this families suffering one way or another, years ago?

Yet God, all loving, knows exactly where she is, she may be in heaven with Him, her body goodness knows were, but doesn’t deign to indicate any of this to a devout Catholic family who pray unceasingly for the safe return of their daughter?

Exactly. To do so would be to destroy his creation. You can have free will, or you can know where this little girl is. Choose one, or the other, but not both, as they are mutually exclusive.

No, sorry, I can’t accept any excuses made on behalf of such an all loving God in this case.

No excuse is necessary. What you bemoan is in fact an example of God’s infinite and perfect love.

And the free will argument doesn’t wash I’m afraid. Clearly all the saints who had visitations from Jesus and Mary, and witness and performed miracles like the Padre Pio claims, didn’t have their free will impacted. So that just doesn’t wash.

What’s your reasoning for this statement? Catholicism is a religion of faith and reason, in equal measure. So I’m amenable to a reasoned argument, but here you give only a conclusion, no argument.

God could end their suffering, right now, right this second, but chooses not to.

Correct, but poorly worded. God chooses not to, because to do so would invalidate his design. God is perfect, therefore he won’t do this, because his design is perfect. In short, God won’t choose imperfection; he doesn’t make mistakes.

That is not remotely loving to me. And never will be.

This is one statement contains two of your mistaken premises, one explicit, one implicit.

Try chaining two or more syllogisms together, and double check your premises. If you get stuck, feel free to message me. Here’s a hint, though: you are reasoning from metaphor.

Good luck, and God bless.

 

[meme1961]

To me, it means one of two things only:

God isn’t ending this family’s suffering, because He can’t. He’s not there.

or

God is utterly and completely detached from human suffering, and can not relate to human pain and anguish. God is detached, disinterested, and uncaring, and certainly not a loving, parental, fatherly God.

God can and will end this family’s suffering. They just have to choose to accept his healing.

This is your fourth mistaken premise (and a false dichotomy, to boot).

 

[meme1961]

I can not accept in relation to Madelaine or any of the other thousands of missing children, the description of a ‘‘loving’’ ‘‘parental’’ ‘‘fatherly’’ God.

Good start. Now, keep going. This is not a “description”, nor a “definition”, it is a kind of metaphor. Reason from true and proper definitions, not metaphors, if you wish to get a properly reasoned conclusion. Consider the implications of the actions you propose as required by moral law.

I’m of course open minded, if I wasn’t, I would be engaging with people here. I really doubt, just as you doubt you’ll ever discover anything that could take your faith away even though you’re open to everything as you say and always looking critically and analytically, that there’s an argument that would convince me, in this case, God’s action, or inaction, is the work of a truly loving God.

Man’s love is imperfect and incomplete. TRULY is an important word here.

If you’d like to share, I would love to read the story of your conversion that you alluded to.

You weren’t talking to me, of course, but I converted to Catholicism as a rational, reasoned choice, based in many years of study and thought, after studying and in some cases, trying nearly every major religion on the planet. And some not so major.

Converting was the most reasoned, rational decision I’ve ever made. But because of that, I’m always open to a reasoned argument against Catholicism. I keep hoping someone will come up with one I haven’t seen before, but that hasn’t happened for a while now.

Your challenge is thousands of years old, and I’ve seen no less than five separate, independent arguments that falsify your assertion. If you are open minded, then may I suggest that you do some reading on the subject? The nature of free will has been debated across more than 2,500 years of Western Philosophy, with a great many interesting works on the subject.

I myself happen to be a kind of Molinist on the subject, but Thomists are welcome here, as well.

Good Luck, and God Bless