Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Trurl]

atheistgirl:

There is NO outcome, I repeat NO outcome of any good, anywhere, at any time, ever, worth the abduction, and possible torture and murder, of an innocent little child. Nothing.

Dear Sarah, of course you are right. But even if there would be some unspecified “good”, according to the catholic DOGMA, the “End can NEVER justify the means”. This is what the un-cathecized or poorly cathecized posters do not comprehend, and refuse to learn. You can educate the only those people who are willing to learn, but not those who put their fingers into their ears, and keep chanting “la-la, I can’t hear you”. Since those posters are unwilling to learn their OWN church’s teachings, you are wasting your time… just a friendly advice.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Dear Sarah, of course you are right. But even if there would be some unspecified “good”, according to the catholic DOGMA, the “End can NEVER justify the means”. This is what the un-cathecized or poorly cathecized posters do not comprehend, and refuse to learn. You can educate the only those people who are willing to learn, but not those who put their fingers into their ears, and keep chanting “la-la, I can’t hear you”. Since those posters are unwilling to learn their OWN church’s teachings, you are wasting your time… just a friendly advice.

Trurl, the paragraph you cite, 1753, states that good intentions cannot justify intrinsically disordered behavior. Allowing one to suffer is not intrinsically disordered, though it may be extrinsically disordered in certain circumstances.

 

[Trurl]

Trurl, the paragraph you cite, 1753, states that good intentions cannot justify intrinsically disordered behavior. Allowing one to suffer is not intrinsically disordered, though it may be extrinsically disordered in certain circumstances.

That paragraph simply says “the end does not justify the means” without any qualifiers. It is an absolute statement. The truth be told, when I first encountered it, I was pleasantly surprised to see something that I agree with. So you are wrong. The statement is an absolute affirmation that “good cannot come out of evil” (as 1761 says and also 1759), which is just a different form of “the end cannot justify the means”. As such, the “greater good defense” is a belly-flop.

 

[ivebeenshown]

That paragraph simply says “the end does not justify the means” without any qualifiers. It is an absolute statement. The truth be told, when I first encountered it, I was pleasantly surprised to see something that I agree with. So you are wrong.

I am not wrong, as I have not disagreed that ends do not justify means, and I have only stated what the paragraph does also state: “A good intention …] does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered …] good or just. The end does not justify the means”. I do disagree, however, that allowing one to suffer is in and of itself an evil act that needs be justified. Allowing one to suffer is a good act that can be made evil according to intent.

The statement is an absolute affirmation that “good cannot come out of evil” (as 1761 says and also 1759), which is just a different form of “the end cannot justify the means”. As such, the “greater good defense” is a belly-flop.

There is evil in the sense of a defect in act on part of a moral agent, and then there is evil in the sense of a defect in being, which is accidental to a good act: so it is good to cleanse the addict, regardless of whether they may suffer physical pain from withdrawal. The greater good arguments draw upon selecting the good action which produces the least evil accidents, not selecting an action which is of itself deficient.

A further example: in rescuing an abducted child from his abductor, the abductor is filled with both sorrow and rage. These evils are so because happiness is the last end of man, yet the act of rescue was in no way evil.

 

[atheistgirl]

Apparently. I am sorry that you find it unacceptable.

No problem. I will never accept any justification for God’s refusal to reveal where this little girl is so she can be reunited with her family. I will never accept there is any greater good that can come out of this.

because allowing the family to suffer for even one microsecond would be an injustice according to you.

No for the sake of argument I pointed out in previous posts God didn’t interfer with the bad guy’s free will in preventing the abduction. A big no no apparently, despite God appearing to Saints, and Mary appearing to little children, all without their free will being compromised

I pointed out that’s all fine and dandy, but now, after 5 years, isn’t it time to end the suffering? I don’t know, but I don’t imagine most of the prayers and Masses being offered for her are worded in such a way as to say something like ‘‘thy will be done’’. I’m pretty sure the supplications are for her safe return to her family

It’s not an unreasonable request to God, and it’s not unreasonable to expect a loving caring fatherly God, to listen, and answer.

Because you do not perceive in entirety or possibly at all what better good there is to be,

That’s right. Not only do I not perceive what better good there is to be from this situation, I state categorically there is none. Not for the family and what they’ve been through, and not for this little girl. None.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Would you deny that suffering is suffering, regardless of its degree? How dare you to call a child’s suffering in visiting the doctor for vaccination ‘not real’? It is admittedly at a far lesser degree than that of the missing girl or her family, but how can you say that it is not suffering?

That’s a good question.

I think I would.

My kids have never thought they were ‘‘suffering’’ when they needed to take medicines, or get vaccinations or shots. They never accused me or their dad of making them ‘‘suffer’’ nor did they ever feel they were suffering.

I’ve never seen a doctor or nurse interact with a child as though it were ‘‘suffering’’ when it’s had it’s vaccinations. The empathy level is on the ‘‘there now Sweetie, all done’’ scale, not the empathy one sees on a deeply human level with real ‘‘suffering’’.

It’s not suffering. It’s a sting for a couple of seconds.

My kids know it. Even dental work. No problem. A bit of discomfort, a little sting, all done.

To me, that’s not suffering.

Of course there’s tons of support and encouragement and love and cuddles and lots of positive affirmation before, during and after, and of course as a parent you ‘‘feel’’ for your kids, because you know they’re going to experience a small amount of pain and discomfort, and of course you’d rather they didn’t have to, but to equate that with suffering? Real suffering?

What those went through on the Trail of Tears is suffering.

What the McCanns are going through is suffering.

What Linda Norgroves parents and Linda herself went through when she was kidnapped is suffering.

What the family Daniel Pearl went through, and what he went through, is suffering.

The list is sadly, and tragically, endless.

A three second jab of a needle in the arm, or gum, is not suffering.

Maybe I just brought my kids up to be tougher than most, and not to feel sorry for themselves

Maybe I’m the kind of mother that’s known enough and seen enough to not be impressed by any claims of ‘‘suffering’’ on a visit to a doctor to get a 3 second shot in the arm



Sarah x

 

[Portofino]

Portofino thanks so much for laying that out so well and so clearly. You’ve expressed it far better than I ever could. And it seems to me, to demonstrate, just how silly the whole justification and free will business is. I stress again, to me, my personal opinion, lest others be offended.

Sarah x

You’re welcome Glad you found it helpful.

 

[fred_conty]

@ atheistgirl

Billions of christians believe Jesus is God, became man, was hung on the cross to die for us. That he made promises to raise us from the dead and to take us home with him in heaven.
He asks us to trust him and believe what he says is true.

An atheist believes nothing of this. There is no value apart from this world. There is no reward or happiness after death. There is no other world of Jesus. These values are non existent along with Jesus and trust in him and therefore prayer as well.

So when we say that prayers of the Pope and many other people for 5 years were not wasted even tho the baby was not found, this is beyond your scope of understanding since these things do not exist to begin with. That God, who is denied existence, could have something of greater value and purpose in all of this is unacceptable, because everything we lay down that is of importance is laid aside as nothing.

The only focus atheism has is the here and now. Heaven,hell, God, prayer, saints, merit, grace, church, and so on, are not there and only exist in the wildest imagination but not in reality.

So we end up talking past one another because there is no foundation from which to talk.
We are talking about things of which you have to ignore as an atheist, which we cannot ignore because we are christian.

But I do admire your compassion and work for others and we need more like you.

Best wishes.

 

[atheistgirl]

We are talking about things of which you have to ignore as an atheist, which we cannot ignore because we are christian.

For the purpose of discussion, I’m allowing for the existence of all these things, and trying to understand things from that perspective.

I can’t.

But I do admire your compassion and work for others and we need more like you.

Thank you.

Best wishes.

I’m kinda a little disappointed you didn’t say God Bless

I welcome and gratefully receive all prayers

Sarah x

 

[ivebeenshown]

they’re going to experience a small amount of pain and discomfort, and of course you’d rather they didn’t have to, but to equate that with suffering? Real suffering?

Is a human being only a ‘real’ human being if they meet a certain age, height, size, or intelligence quota? Is a truck only a ‘real’ truck if it has a diesel engine? More bluntly: is a scotsman only a ‘true’ scotsman if he likes haggis? (Yes, I am accusing you of moving goalposts to avoid criticism of your arguments.)

To experience pain is to suffer. The degree of, mode of (whether physical or emotional), and tolerance of an individual toward pain experienced are accidental to the act of suffering itself.

 

[atheistgirl]

Is a human being only a ‘real’ human being if they meet a certain age, height, size, or intelligence quota?

No.

Is a truck only a ‘real’ truck if it has a diesel engine?

No.

More bluntly: is a scotsman only a ‘true’ scotsman if he likes haggis?

No.

(Yes, I am accusing you of moving goalposts to avoid criticism of your arguments.)

Why Sir, you do me an a grave injustice. (swoons)

(fans self struggling for breath)

You slander my good name and accuse me most grievously in error

(swoons again)

Why, I’m quite sure I …

(faints).

To experience pain is to suffer.
The degree (or severity) of, mode of (whether physical or emotional), and tolerance of an individual toward pain experienced are accidental to the act of suffering itself.

(regains composure)

So you say.

I disagree.

As I’ve outlined above.

(looks up haggis and decides True Scotsmen really do suffer )

Sarah x

 

[Poseidon]

Is a human being only a ‘real’ human being if they meet a certain age, height, size, or intelligence quota? Is a truck only a ‘real’ truck if it has a diesel engine? More bluntly: is a scotsman only a ‘true’ scotsman if he likes haggis? (Yes, I am accusing you of moving goalposts to avoid criticism of your arguments.)

**To experience pain is to suffer. **The degree of, mode of (whether physical or emotional), and tolerance of an individual toward pain experienced are accidental to the act of suffering itself.

I disagree with you here. Pain does not equal suffering. If I were to take a tack off my board and poke myself with it, it hurts, but I am not suffering. I am feeling pain. Suffering is deeper than that. Pain can lead to suffering, but they are not the same.

An example of suffering: for years I lived hating myself because I was a devout Catholic and am gay. I know the church’s teaching on homosexuals, so I don’t need to be told about that, but I still lived knowing that I could never be in a relationship with anyone, that I would probably be going to hell because of my “evil,” “unnatural” desires, that if my family or Catholic friends ever found out I’d probably be ostracized. There was no pain there, but I was definitely suffering. I was alone, depressed, and felt worthless. I would gladly have traded that for physical pain. Needle pricks are nothing; real suffering involves the whole person.

 

[Trurl]

fred conty:

Billions of christians believe Jesus is God, became man, was hung on the cross to die for us. That he made promises to raise us from the dead and to take us home with him in heaven.
He asks us to trust him and believe what he says is true.

An atheist believes nothing of this. There is no value apart from this world. There is no reward or happiness after death. There is no other world of Jesus. These values are non existent along with Jesus and trust in him and therefore prayer as well.

So when we say that prayers of the Pope and many other people for 5 years were not wasted even tho the baby was not found, this is beyond your scope of understanding since these things do not exist to begin with. That God, who is denied existence, could have something of greater value and purpose in all of this is unacceptable, because everything we lay down that is of importance is laid aside as nothing.

The only focus atheism has is the here and now. Heaven,hell, God, prayer, saints, merit, grace, church, and so on, are not there and only exist in the wildest imagination but not in reality.

So we end up talking past one another because there is no foundation from which to talk.
We are talking about things of which you have to ignore as an atheist, which we cannot ignore because we are christian.

A very wise and astute summary!

However, you missed something. Atheists are willing to accept the basic principle (God’s existence) for the purposes of a discussion, and are willing to stipulate some purported attributes of God (also for the purposes of discussion), and then start to examine the how these assumed attributes can coexist with each other, and how can they be reconciled with the observed states of affairs. And this is when the proverbial substance hits the fan.

One of the attributes of God is “love”. Seems very simple, we all know how a person behaves towards someones else she loves. When a believer says “Jim is a wonderful, loving father”, we can know a lot about that person’s behavior. We know that “Jim” would never beat his child, we know he would feed the child regularly, every day, we know he would carry the child to the doctor, help him to grow up to become a good person… etc… etc. That is the “assumed love” of Jim would manifest itself in an observable way. If we take “Bob” for example, who mistreats his children, who neglects to take care of them, both believers and atheists will agree that Bob is a horrible parent, even if he proclaims loud and clear that he “loves” his children. There is no “slack” cut for Bob. He behaves as a horrible parent, and therefore we consider him a horrible parent. No one would dare to come and say: “Well, you don’t really KNOW what Bob means when he beats his kid within a hairwidth of his life, MAYBE he knows best!”. Anyone, who would say something like that would be disregarded as an idiot.

Now, the believer says “God loves us”. At best he will bring up a piece of mythology (John 3:16), and says that Jesus’ sacrifice is the ultimate expression of love. There is NOTHING else. The hungry are not fed, the sick are not healed, the victims are not protected. Effectively God behaves as Bob, but the believers refuse to use the same measuring rod. God gets special treatment, and when the atheists point out the irrationality of this behavior, they are being shouted down, saying: “How dare you to criticize God!”. They do not realize that it is not God who is being criticized, it is the apologists, who try find excuses for their hypothetical God.

So, you are right, there are serious difficulties in establishing a common ground, and the fault lies squarely with the believers.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I disagree with you here. Pain does not equal suffering. If I were to take a tack off my board and poke myself with it, it hurts, but I am not suffering. I am feeling pain. Suffering is deeper than that. Pain can lead to suffering, but they are not the same.

Suffering simply means ‘to experience pain or discomfort’.

There was no pain there, but I was definitely suffering. I was alone, depressed, and felt worthless. I would gladly have traded that for physical pain. Needle pricks are nothing; real suffering involves the whole person.

Again: suffering is not qualified by a certain severity or mode of pain, or by the intolerance of the suffering person. You experienced pain, perhaps not physically, but emotionally.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I disagree.

As I’ve outlined above.

Are you then the arbiter of what pain does or does not qualify for ‘true suffering’? What is your working definition? ‘Suffering means to experience pain, whether physically or emotionally, at any degree higher than _____’?

If my daughter were an alcoholic and I consigned her to rehabilitation, would she not suffer withdrawal symptoms?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Dear Sarah, of course you are right. But even if there would be some unspecified “good”, according to the catholic DOGMA, the “End can NEVER justify the means”. This is what the un-cathecized or poorly cathecized posters do not comprehend, and refuse to learn. You can educate the only those people who are willing to learn, but not those who put their fingers into their ears, and keep chanting “la-la, I can’t hear you”. Since those posters are unwilling to learn their OWN church’s teachings, you are wasting your time… just a friendly advice.

Perhaps we refuse to learn your rendition of the principle because it is simply false. Your thinking is a misapplication of the principle “The ends can never justify the means.”
The principle presumes that the agent willing the end is the same agent directly willing and bringing about the evil means to do so. That is not the case with God and evil. It is quite permissible for God (or anyone else for that matter) to use the evil caused by other agents to bring about ultimate good. By your application, it would be unacceptable to make lemonade out of lemons or make the best of a bad situation.

It could be you putting your fingers in your ears regarding the implications of free will that causes you to believe that in the end God is the efficient cause of everything and therefore would be infringing this principle by using existing evil to bring about good. The shortcoming is yours, not the poorly cathecized [sic] (catechized?), whoever they are.

 

[mgoforth]

Perhaps we refuse to learn your rendition of the principle because it is simply false. Your thinking is a misapplication of the principle “The ends can never justify the means.”
The principle presumes that the agent willing the end is the same agent directly willing and bringing about the evil means to do so. That is not the case with God and evil. It is quite permissible for God (or anyone else for that matter) to use the evil caused by other agents to bring about ultimate good. By your application, it would be unacceptable to make lemonade out of lemons or make the best of a bad situation.

It could be you putting your fingers in your ears regarding the implications of free will that causes you to believe that in the end God is the efficient cause of everything and therefore would be infringing this principle by using existing evil to bring about good. The shortcoming is yours, not the poorly cathecized [sic] (catechized?), whoever they are.

Thank you Peter, I agree.

For anyone not aware, Trurl is attempting something that many atheists would like to do - namely to convince Catholics who value obedience to the Church as a virtue that the belief in question (and it really doesn’t matter to the atheist what the belief is, since they hate them all) can only be held through…gasp…disobedience. If we look at his original post, it’s pretty easy to see this strategy at work:

You should remember the catholic dogma: “THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS”.

Start with a falsely interpretted/applied teaching of the Church, as Peter Plato has just proven.

Even if your so-called reasons would be valid (and of course they are sheer baloney), it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH which says: you are WRONG.

Begin to introduce doubt…“Oh my, does the Church really say that?” Also notice the mockery of any reasons given to support the belief in question. It’s hard for enemies of the Church to conceal their anger.

No outcome, no matter how “wonderful” it might be, can justify the means.

Rehash false interpretation of doctrine.

Of course you are free to dispute the authority of the church, but it is not advisable for a believer.

Leave us with a warning that we’re disputing the authority of the Church. “Wow, thanks helpful atheist for saving me from disobedience!”

You’ll see this kind of trolling all over CAF. Best ignored.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is NO outcome, I repeat NO outcome of any good, anywhere, at any time, ever, worth the abduction, and possible torture and murder, of an innocent little child. Nothing.

This is simply a restatement of Trurl’s thinking that the end can never justify the means and suffers from the same problem.

No one is claiming that some final outcome will justify the abduction and torture of the child and somehow make it right. You are quite correct in claiming that. Nothing will ever make it right. Good, no matter how good can ever change an evil act magically into a good one. That is certainly not what is being claimed here.

What is being claimed is that justice will be done. Recompense will occur.

Your stance that nothing that can ever happen to resolve this situation will ever be sufficient to overcome the suffering of the family is a different question. It is a claim that nothing God could do would ever “fix” or resolve the situation for the family.

I would compare your position to someone reading a sleuth tale and somewhere in the middle proclaiming, “Well, I can see no way out of this one!” forgetting that the author has devices and possibilities at hand that the impulsive reader has no inkling about.

Your stance is tantamount to claiming omniscience: that you have available to you every possible outcome and have declared them all insufficient. Not only that, but you, in your “wisdom,” have proclaimed such an outcome also beyond possibility for God.

However, since the story is not in your hands, and God, who “knitted together your bones and flesh” may have options that are inaccessible to you, your ranting may in the end be nothing more than self-righteous indignation.

I detect a faint odor of humble pie wafting in the breeze. My understanding is that humble pie puts off as many potential eaters as haggis, especially those with entrenched eating habits.

Lest I be accused of heartless conjecture, I am not clear that your position isn’t just a declaration of hopelessness when we have reason to believe that God is “[in the supernatural sense] hope for the hopeless.” It goes without saying that hopelessness wouldn’t be hopeless if it still had [natural] hope.
Perhaps that is why the theological virtue of hope is in fact a supernatural virtue, because if it were merely a natural one, your hopeless position would be all that could be mustered in the face of this kind of situation.

 

[atheistgirl]

Leave us with a warning that we’re disputing the authority of the Church. “Wow, thanks helpful atheist for saving me from disobedience!”

You’ll see this kind of trolling all over CAF. Best ignored.

I think your accusations of trolling against Trurl are a bit strong, and unjustified.

This is a philosophy forum.

Ideas, understandings, interpretations, speculations will all be expressed and explored.

Sure, some very gently, some quite forcefully, and all with the individuals particular ‘‘personality’’ but none the less to put forward one’s understanding of a doctrine, then defend it, whether it’s right or wrong, is hardly trolling

I think if Trurl were in another forum here like Traditional Catholicism, or Sacred Scripture, and was stating you Catholics are wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about, that would be different.

But in a philosophy forum, isn’t the whole purpose to develop, explore, and defend understandings and have your ideas held up to scrutiny?

I’m not philosopher - in fact I could never be a philosopher because I was born with just too much common sense but I love this section of the forum more than any of the others, precisely because there is such vigorous debate and exploration of ideas.

Readers like me get to see the arguments made on both sides, and get a wonderful education and understanding and insight into the issues under discussion.

Accusations of trolling don’t really add anything constructive.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

I think your accusations of trolling against Trurl are a bit strong, and unjustified.

This is a philosophy forum.

Ideas, understandings, interpretations, speculations will all be expressed and explored.

Sure, some very gently, some quite forcefully, and all with the individuals particular ‘‘personality’’ but none the less to put forward one’s understanding of a doctrine, then defend it, whether it’s right or wrong, is hardly trolling

I think if Trurl were in another forum here like Traditional Catholicism, or Sacred Scripture, and was stating you Catholics are wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about, that would be different.

But in a philosophy forum, isn’t the whole purpose to develop, explore, and defend understandings and have your ideas held up to scrutiny?

I’m not philosopher - in fact I could never be a philosopher because I was born with just too much common sense but I love this section of the forum more than any of the others, precisely because there is such vigorous debate and exploration of ideas.

Readers like me get to see the arguments made on both sides, and get a wonderful education and understanding and insight into the issues under discussion.

Accusations of trolling don’t really add anything constructive.

Sarah x

I would agree completely with your reasoning, IF…

1. If Trurl didn’t include insults in his/her responses. Right off the bat, Trurl classified Catholic reasons as baloney. I’m not offended by anything he/she has said, but that tells me the true motive is not to debate philosophical ideas in a friendly manner. This person’s motive is clearly to attack.
2. If I hadn’t seen this same attack formula used 100 times before. It’s a standard…tell Catholics they’re disobeying the Church by believing X, when the Church Herself clearly teaches X.