Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[atheistgirl]

your ranting may in the end be nothing more than self-righteous indignation.

I wasn’t ranting

I detect a faint odor of humble pie wafting in the breeze.

No. What your nose is picking up is a Double Chocolate Peanut Butter Supreme - it needs another five minutes or so

My understanding is that humble pie puts off as many potential eaters as haggis, especially those with entrenched eating habits.

No idea. I’ve never eaten either

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.

In what sense is *my *position hopeless

Because I don’t think an all loving all powerful fatherly God would let the suffering of this family continue?

Or because I understand why God has done nothing - He’s not there?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

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.

Perhaps that’s just her or his way of expressing themselves Instead of saying something like the reasons are illogical, inconsistent, incoherent, or whatever, they just use a type of shorthand, and say baloney. It might just be their ‘‘style’’ and perhaps you’re reading too much into it.

I don’t know.

It’s also worth noting they say the reasons, not people or individual faithful catholics, as you pointed out. So it seems to me the emphasis is on the argumentation, not the people making it or the Church to which they belong.

Isn’t that part of the thrust of philosophy? To ‘‘attack’’ the argument, but never the person or the entity?

That’s an important distinction, because you’ll see throughout these forums, many belief systems ‘‘attacked’’ as misguided or incoherent, while making it clear such remarks are in no way aimed at individuals who hold such beliefs, who are treated cordially and with respect and charity.

I should note here it’s my experience that atheists on this forum are treated so much better and with so much more respect and welcoming acceptance than on any other religious forum I’ve ever been on, which I think is a great reflection on both CAF and Catholics in general.

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.

In light of your obvious experience of formulaic attacks on the Church, I stand aside on this one as you have such experience and I don’t - I was just saying I didn’t see it as you did.

Sarah x

 

[Peter_Plato]

In what sense is *my *position hopeless

Your position in the sense of advocating that the family is without hope in terms of the situation ever being resolved.

Because I don’t think an all loving all powerful fatherly God would let the suffering of this family continue?

Or because I understand why God has done nothing - He’s not there?

Sarah x

I guess the same question could be asked of why God would allow his own son suffer and die on the cross and “do nothing” to stop it. The same question could be asked of every suffering in the world.

The easy answer is “He’s not there.” However, easy answers are not without their own issues. The easy answer entails that all suffering has essentially no meaning and without the possibility of ever being recompensed in any way whatsoever. If you find those ramifications satisfying, that would seem to leave the issue of suffering not merely unfathomable or problematic, but, in principle, a non-issue for you. An easy way out emotionally speaking?

The conclusion that there is no God means all the Jewish halocaust victims (and all other sufferers) can be dismissed with an casual shrug and trite, “That’s life!” response. Can you be comfortable with the fact that there will be no recompense for halocaust victims or anyone else, for that matter? I can’t be. I can’t subscribe to the just grin and bear it for tomorrow we die view of evil and suffering. That is not “hope for the hopeless,” but instead advocates “hopelessness for the hopeless.”

If that suffices as an answer for you, then we just operate with quite a different set of expectations of the world.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Another much more better, IMHO, point of view on hell can be synthesized in this way:

Hell exists because we refuse God, his love and our ontology in Christ.

And we can say we build it with our hands; through our free decisions AGAINST OUR ORIGIN as living being created according to the Bible (Gen 1,26): “'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves”; if we refuse to be what we are, we desire our annihilation.
Cf. also CCC 1033: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

 

[atheistgirl]

Your position in the sense of advocating that the family is without hope in terms of the situation ever being resolved.

That’s not my position.

I never said the family are without hope of their situation ever being resolved.

I have questioned why God has chosen not to answer 5 years worth of continuous Masses, supplications and prayer vigils for the return of this little girl and how such inaction can be considered the actions of an all powerful, all loving, fatherly God.

I’ve stated my position that anyone with information on the whereabouts of the child, who refused to end the suffering of the family by not informing them, or the authorities, would rightly be considered a moral monster.

I’ve said no excuse for this persons inaction would ever be accepted by anyone, yet we’re supposed to accept this inaction on the part of God as somehow being in the best interests of the family, since God can only do good, and if God has not revealed the whereabouts of this little girl and ended the families suffering to date, there must be a greater good to come out of this, which we can’t know, since God is only capable of being and doing good in all situations and at all times.

But I’ve never said the family will not have the situation resolved.

One day, they may.

And I can tell you now, with absolute certainty, that as and when the little girl is found, dead or alive, even if it’s 30 years from now, there will be an outpouring of thanks to God for answering the prayers of all who prayed for her to be returned to her family

The fact the family by then would have been left in unimaginable torment for 35 years won’t even be thought about.

I guess the same question could be asked of why God would allow his own son suffer and die on the cross and “do nothing” to stop it.

Because He designed it so The OT prefigures the birth death and resurrection of Jesus. It was written and it must be so. Why would God stop what He Himself demanded and determined thousands of years earlier was going to happen

If you find those ramifications satisfying, that would seem to leave the issue of suffering not merely unfathomable or problematic, but, in principle, a non-issue for you. An easy way out emotionally speaking?

Oh, it’s not emotionally void. I’ve wept when a teenage girl I was working with told me she’d be dropping out of the group because her brother was murdered the night before and she’d have to stay at home and sort things out, then become the main carer for her disabled mom.

I’ve wept when I’ve seen the real suffering of those in various parts of the world through natural disaster and famine.

I’ve lost sleep thinking about what I could practically do for a family I knew through one of the groups I work with, whose home had been firebombed because the two eldest boys owed drug dealers money.

I was profoundly affected when the brother of one of my girlfriends hanged himself. His children came home from school and found him, and called their mom at work, hysterical. She was two hours away. I was much closer. I made the calls necessary, made the contacts, and went over and picked the kids up and took them home with me.

I could go on. I won’t. But don’t think my atheism ensures I live in an emotional vacuum, or what my fellow human beings go through is an emotional non issue for me.

The conclusion that there is no God means all the Jewish halocaust victims (and all other sufferers) can be dismissed with an casual shrug and trite, “That’s life!” response.

They can

Perhaps you can shrug your shoulders at such suffering, but I can’t.

Can you be comfortable with the fact that there will be no recompense for halocaust victims or anyone else, for that matter?

Totally.

That’s why we are compelled to seek justice and fairness in this life, and do the best we can for all for the little time we’re here. Not just shrug our shoulders at such suffering.

This is the one shot we get at life.

I can’t be. I can’t subscribe to the just grin and bear it for tomorrow we die view of evil and suffering. That is not “hope for the hopeless,” but instead advocates “hopelessness for the hopeless.”

I don’t see any hopelessness there. It is what it is. Life is rich and full and joyous and tragic and hard and wonderful. When it ends, it’s over. There’s no hopelessness there. Just nature.

I understand why the idea that there is something else afterwards is attractive - not least because it can offer us hope that those who suffer will be rewarded, those who caused suffering within be punished, and we’ll never die.

I think it’s all hubris. We’re so full of ourselves as a species we just can’t conceive of the idea we’re just an animal, among millions of animals, albeit with a highly developed sense of empathy what has allowed us to survive and thrive, living on a dying planet, that will eventually be no more.

I don’t see this as hopeless.

In fact just the opposite. I see this as something to be enormously joyous about, and to energize the desire to make the absolute most of this life, for the good of all I come in contact with, and myself, and have a lot of fun along the way

If that suffices as an answer for you, then we just operate with quite a different set of expectations of the world.

I guess that’s true.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Perhaps that’s just her or his way of expressing themselves Instead of saying something like the reasons are illogical, inconsistent, incoherent, or whatever, they just use a type of shorthand, and say baloney. It might just be their ‘‘style’’ and perhaps you’re reading too much into it.

I don’t know.

It’s also worth noting they say the reasons, not people or individual faithful catholics, as you pointed out. So it seems to me the emphasis is on the argumentation, not the people making it or the Church to which they belong.

Isn’t that part of the thrust of philosophy? To ‘‘attack’’ the argument, but never the person or the entity?

That’s an important distinction, because you’ll see throughout these forums, many belief systems ‘‘attacked’’ as misguided or incoherent, while making it clear such remarks are in no way aimed at individuals who hold such beliefs, who are treated cordially and with respect and charity.

I should note here it’s my experience that atheists on this forum are treated so much better and with so much more respect and welcoming acceptance than on any other religious forum I’ve ever been on, which I think is a great reflection on both CAF and Catholics in general.

I do have a problem with letting pride take over sometimes…one of the manifestations of which is that I tend to be easily offended. In reading over some of Trurl’s past posts, it appears that he/she is at least consistent in misinterpretting the teaching mentioned earlier. So I’m willing to admit the possibility that he/she is sincerely seeking to join in the debate rather than just attack the faith of others.

However, wouldn’t it be so much easier to see that motive if Trurl could manage to substitute “that doesn’t make sense to me” for “baloney”? Or instead of telling Catholics that they’re in disobedience to the Church for believing that God allows the faithful to suffer for their own good, why not ask how we reconcile this with the “end doesn’t justify the means” teaching? Perhaps it’s just very poor communication…

Catholics are told to only read good intentions from people’s actions, whenever possible. But we’re also told this:

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7: 15-20

Including insults and using traditional formulas of sowing confusion are fruits of insincerity and anger, in my mind at least.

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

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.

You made a few mistakes here. If one can use an existing “evil” as a starting point, and creates something better out of it, this process STILL does not justify the original evil. It does not justify the “implicit permission” or the “active participation” in the evil act. So the principle is exactly as I said it was. The statement in the catechism is categorical and not conditional. No matter what good outcome may result at the very end, that outcome cannot justify the means.

Second problem is that the catechism also states that “no good can come out of evil”, and that is also a categorical statement, in synch with the other one.

Third problem is that you forget about the catholic dogma, which states that God is an ACTIVE participant in every event, no matter how good or horrible it is. If I would aim a gun at someone, with the intent to kill, this intent would be futile, if God would not maintain the bullet on its trajectory, would not allow the kinetic energy of the bullet to penetrate and do its damage. God ACTIVELY participates in every rape, murder, torture… and this is not my “invetntion”, it is what the dogma says.

So what are we talking about?

 

[Trurl]

However, wouldn’t it be so much easier to see that motive if Trurl could manage to substitute “that doesn’t make sense to me” for “baloney”?

Hey, “baloney” is a very mild word, compare to what I would prefer to say… but I obey the rules. Also, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. .

Or instead of telling Catholics that they’re in disobedience to the Church for believing that God allows the faithful to suffer for their own good, why not ask how we reconcile this with the “end doesn’t justify the means” teaching?

If only the faithful would suffer, I would have no problem with it. Just like I have no problem with those people in the Philippines who want to emulate Jesus’ suffering and have themselves crucified. They want to suffer, let them suffer. And I already saw all the different cop-outs ever concocted. Nothing ever surprises me any more.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve stated my position that anyone with information on the whereabouts of the child, who refused to end the suffering of the family by not informing them, or the authorities, would rightly be considered a moral monster.

Agreed.

I’ve said no excuse for this persons inaction would ever be accepted by anyone, yet we’re supposed to accept this inaction on the part of God as somehow being in the best interests of the family, since God can only do good, and if God has not revealed the whereabouts of this little girl and ended the families suffering to date, there must be a greater good to come out of this, which we can’t know, since God is only capable of being and doing good in all situations and at all times.

We have no way of knowing God’s motive for inaction. It may be tied into whoever perpetrated the act needing to take responsibility. From my reading of the case there seemed to be irresponsibility on the part of a number of individuals. Arm chair critique is always easy.

And I can tell you now, with absolute certainty, that as and when the little girl is found, dead or alive, even if it’s 30 years from now, there will be an outpouring of thanks to God for answering the prayers of all who prayed for her to be returned to her family

The fact the family by then would have been left in unimaginable torment for 35 years won’t even be thought about.

God’s actions before and after the fact, as well as our reading of them will always be a mystery to some degree. It seems to me that what you have an issue with is the application of our understanding of God as a reason to gloss over suffering. I won’t disagree with that, but your understanding of God likewise limits your view of God’s possible role.

Because He designed it so The OT prefigures the birth death and resurrection of Jesus. It was written and it must be so. Why would God stop what He Himself demanded and determined thousands of years earlier was going to happen

Perhaps but that observation does not take anything away from the fact that Mary, his mother, would have suffered grievously watching her son be scourged, traumatized and crucified in front of her eyes. Do you believe Jesus (God) would have suffered less watching his mother being so tormented in front of his eyes? Only a supercilious understanding of God (as less than human and not greater) could dismiss the suffering of Jesus and Mary, because it was foreknown, as therefore superficial or hammed in some way.

As Creator, God could certainly (as the deists hold) have left it to humans to suffer the consequences of our evil, but he didn’t. My understanding of Jesus’ death is that it is also an icon of the fact that God participates in every suffering that every human goes through. He knows us intimately and suffers in and with us. He could spare himself that as well, but doesn’t. The mystery is why not?

Oh, it’s not emotionally void. I’ve wept when a teenage girl I was working with told me she’d be dropping out of the group because her brother was murdered the night before and she’d have to stay at home and sort things out, then become the main carer for her disabled mom…

I was profoundly affected when the brother of one of my girlfriends hanged himself. His children came home from school and found him, and called their mom at work, hysterical. She was two hours away. I was much closer. I made the calls necessary, made the contacts, and went over and picked the kids up and took them home with me.

I could go on. I won’t. But don’t think my atheism ensures I live in an emotional vacuum, or what my fellow human beings go through is an emotional non issue for me.

Perhaps you can shrug your shoulders at such suffering, but I can’t.

You are a bigger person than I will ever be. However, your claim is that God does shrug his shoulders. I disagree.

That’s why we are compelled to seek justice and fairness in this life, and do the best we can for all for the little time we’re here. Not just shrug our shoulders at such suffering.

Perhaps it is God in us that compels us to seek justice and fairness.

This is the one shot we get at life.

I don’t see any hopelessness there. It is what it is. Life is rich and full and joyous and tragic and hard and wonderful. When it ends, it’s over. There’s no hopelessness there. Just nature.

I understand why the idea that there is something else afterwards is attractive - not least because it can offer us hope that those who suffer will be rewarded, those who caused suffering within be punished, and we’ll never die.

I think it’s all hubris. We’re so full of ourselves as a species we just can’t conceive of the idea we’re just an animal, among millions of animals, albeit with a highly developed sense of empathy what has allowed us to survive and thrive, living on a dying planet, that will eventually be no more.

If we were just animals and without an objective sense of justice and worth, empathy would make no sense. Having any sense of self, when self is an illusion is indeed hubris. It may be hubris for an animal to believe in an enduring self if none exists, but if personhood is real and enduring then it is quite a different fault to deny it.

I don’t see this as hopeless.

In fact just the opposite. I see this as something to be enormously joyous about, and to energize the desire to make the absolute most of this life, for the good of all I come in contact with, and myself, and have a lot of fun along the way

Sarah x

How is this denied by God existing?

 

[atheistgirl]

How is this denied by God existing?

I agree, it’s not.

I do wonder sometimes though, if people who could act, fail to act, because their faith gives them a certain resignation. They have an attitude of ‘‘offering it up’’, leaving it to God, rather than being proactive and getting their hands dirty and actually getting out there and doing something to make things better.

I don’t know.

It’s just a suspicion I have about some peoples attitude to things.

Sarah x

 

[HansTrappist]

…you forget about the catholic dogma, which states that God is an ACTIVE participant in every event, no matter how good or horrible it is…God ACTIVELY participates in every rape, murder, torture… and this is not my “invetntion”, it is what the dogma says.

The Catechism doesn’t even come close to saying what you are saying. Nice try, though.

Hell exists. That’s where Satan lives. Satan is a theist. Satan wishes to devour you now and for eternity. Hell will have a physical dimension since at the General Resurrection you will be given a glorified, perfected body capable of enjoying either perfect happiness in Heaven or pefect suffering in Hell. The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside. Everyone who goes to Hell wants to go there because they love themselves and material objects more than God. Our Lady of Fatima said that more people go to Hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth commandments than for any other reason. Venerable Fulton Sheen makes a good point on the problem of Lust:

Lust is a shifting of the center of the personality from the spirit to the flesh, from the I to the ego. In some instances, its excesses are born of an uneasy conscience and of a desire to escape from self towards others; sometimes there is a contrary desire to make the ego supreme by the subordination of others to itself. In its later stages, the libertine finds that neither release from self nor idolatry is possible for long; the soul is driven back to self and, therefore, to an inner hell. The effect of lust on the will is to develop a hatred of God and a denial of immortality. Excesses also deplete the source of spiritual energy to such an extent that one finally becomes incapable of calm judgement in any other field.

Lust is not sex - for sex is purely biological and is a God-given capacity; nor is it love, which finds one of its lawful expressions in sex. Lust is the isolation of sex from true love. There is no passion that more quickly produces slavery than lust - as there is none whose perversions more quickly destroy the power of the intellect and the will. Excesses affect the reason in four ways: by perverting the* understanding so that one becomes intellectually blind and unable to see the truth; by weakening prudence *and a sense of values, thus producing rashness; by building up a self-love to generate thoughtlessness; by weakening the will until the power of decision is lost and one becomes a prey to inconstancy of character.

The effects on the will are as disastrous as the effects on the reason. In those who are repeatedly given to excesses, there is apt to be a hatred of God and religion and a denial of immortality. The hatred of the Divine comes because God is seen as an obstacle to self-gratification. Lechers deny God because His Omniscience means that their behavior has been observed by the One bound to reproach it. Until such individuals abandon their egoistic animality, they must insist on being atheists, for only the atheist is able to imagine that he is unwatched.

A related effect of lust is the denial of immortality. As the egotist lives mroe and more in the flesh, the thought of judgement becomes more and more distasteful to him; to quiet his fears, he embraces the belief that the Judgement will never be. The acceptance of immortality would carry a responsibility that the lecherous ego is afraid to face - one that would force him to transform his whole life, if he did face it. Any mention of a future life is apt to drive such a person into a fury of cynicism; the reminder of the possibility of Judgement increases his anguished anxiety. Every attempt to save such a person is regarded by him as an attack upon his happiness…

…Until a person has discovered the true Infinite, he is invariably led from subjectivism to hedonism. Every quest for pleasure attracts us because we hope, by savoring it, to get a foretaste of something that will exceed it in intensity and joy. Our hunger for the infinite is never quieted. Every person stands in grave danger of self-hatred and despair until he finds his true Infinite in God…

Every sin has a double element, material and formal. The material element in sin is its content, or the stuff of which it is made, and this is always good; there is nothing in the visible universe that is intrinsically wicked. Alcohol, flesh, sex, gold, wine - all these things are good and therefore are desirable.

The formal element in a sin is its evil and perverse abuse of a good thing. It is this distortion and exaggerated love of something that makes us misuse it for an evil end; it turns love into lust, love of alcohol into drunkenness, and love of wealth into avarice.

Sinners look only at the material element of a sin and fint it good - as it is. Then, when they have abused its goodness, they turn against God because the effects of this misuse has brought them misery. They forget that God does not forbid the right use of things, but only their abuse. Sinners point to saintly people who enjoy the same good things without ill effects - failing to understand that the saintly use them according to right reason and the Will of God. What the sinner loves in sin is the* matter of sin, which is good; what the sinner hates in sin is the unhappiness, remorse, melancholy, and sense of defeat that comes from the perversion or abuse *of what is good. He loves sin in the concrete; he hates it in the abstract. This accounts for the psychological feeling of tension and conflict inside every sinner. The ego wants one thing; the I, another. The ego wants reality to yield to him and to let him enjoy things to excess, without the ensuing remorse…

 

[mgoforth]

Hey, “baloney” is a very mild word, compare to what I would prefer to say… but I obey the rules. Also, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. .

You’ve misread me, Trurl. I’m not offended by baloney or any other word, although I’m glad you obey the letter of the law in this case. The only “heat” would be sound, logical arguments against the Church…and I’m not in the least afraid of something that doesn’t exist.

If only the faithful would suffer, I would have no problem with it. Just like I have no problem with those people in the Philippines who want to emulate Jesus’ suffering and have themselves crucified. They want to suffer, let them suffer. And I already saw all the different cop-outs ever concocted. Nothing ever surprises me any more.

In a way you’re correct, actually. I read something recently that offered an interesting explanation for why evil people often seem to lead very nice, comfortable lives. The theory was that perhaps God has pity on the truly evil and doesn’t force them to suffer too much in this world because He already knows that they will end up in Hell and have to suffer greatly for the rest of eternity. Of course, He can only give them a brief period of sinful pleasures because eventually their bill comes due.

Suffering now is clearly the smarter choice, if it helps us reach eternal happiness. Is Pascal’s Wager considered a cop-out?

 

[atheistgirl]

Perhaps but that observation does not take anything away from the fact that Mary, his mother, would have suffered grievously .

Being familiar with these Gospel accounts, as a mother my heart breaks to imagine what Mary would have felt watching her child go through that. The effect it has on me is to make me want to round up all my kids right now and hug them and tell them how much I love them, and always will.

You are a bigger person than I will ever be. However, your claim is that God does shrug his shoulders. I disagree.

I know I’m not.

I shared here once the agonizing death my best friend in the world went through in a wreck. She died over several hours, and it’s unimaginable to think of the pain she was in, the terror she was in of feeling her life ebb away and unable to do anything about it, the unspeakable loneliness of dying in agony, on her own.

Someone responded that Jesus was with her, she didn’t die alone, and depending on certain conditions being met, there’s every chance she could be enjoying eternal bliss now in heaven, and her suffering, and the suffering of her family in the aftermath, is as but nothing compared to that bliss.

I had tears in my eyes reading that. I have tears in my eyes now writing this. There is not a single day has passed over these years, that I don’t think about her, the joy we had together, the unbreakable bond we shared, and then I always see her dying alone, calling for her mom, call for me - and we weren’t there, and we could do nothing.

It’s very beautiful, and poetic, to think Jesus was with her, that she somehow knew and felt this, that she some how could feel comforted over the several hours it took her to die because Jesus was with her, and at the moment of death, He took her with Him to heaven.

I love this image. I love this picture. It puts right all the things that haunt me, and will continue to haunt me until I die, about my best friends death.

I can see in my mind Jesus sitting with her, talking to her, holding her, comforting her, saying all the right things, telling her the agony will soon be over, and she will be with him in Heaven for all Eternity.

I can see Jesus doing this, because it’s what I should have been able to do. It’s where I should have been, there for her, when she needed me more than at any time in her life. I should have been holding her, kissing her, comforting her, telling her I’m going to fix it, telling her I’m going to make everything ok, telling her to just ‘‘relax and enjoy it’’ (can’t explain now but it’s something we used to say to each other all the time then burst out laughing, usually when either of us was about to face something horrible, or difficult or do something we were really dreading, and based on something else that was quite naughty!) and I’d put everything right and make everything ok.

But here, Jesus is just covering for the fact I wasn’t, and couldn’t be there for her.

If Jesus was there, my question is why did You let her die? Why did You sit and comfort her, sit and kiss her and hold her, and not save her life, when You could have? Why did You decide the most beautiful, kind, loving, caring, funny, naughty, mischievous, tolerant, charitable, adorable, wonderful young woman You’ve ever created should die, rather than be saved? You could have saved her in a heartbeat, but You didn’t. You took my best friend away from me. We should have shared our lives for the next 60 or 70 years, and grown old together. You took that away from me, when You could have prevented it and You owe me an explanation. You didn’t need to prevent the wreck, although you could have, but you could have prevented her dying, and You didn’t. Why? Explain to me how You could do that, and still expect me to call You loving, or caring, or Fatherly.(Her family have been devastated and still are to this day. I’m not excluding them in this, nor do I think our relationship was more important than that of her family - for this conversation I’m only focusing on the aspect of our friendship - her death devastated all who knew her and we’re all still grieving years later)

But you see, there’s no comfort in that image of Jesus with her. There’s just more hurt, and confusion, and unanswered questions, and then, if one believes in God, one has to defend why God chose to let such a beautiful person die, why God decided to call her ‘‘home’’, and yet leaves the serial murderer and rapist alive, to kill and rape again and again and again.

I understand it for what it was. A tragic accident. And a monumental loss to all who knew her.

No purpose or design in it. No God to blame, or take comfort in. No hope in an eternal life I see no evidence for.

Life goes on. And we continue to do the best we can, for ourselves and all those around us.
And we hope to die a peaceful death in old age, having done as much good, and as little harm, over those 90 or so years.

The very act of living on a dying planet ensures there will be tragic consequences at times for us. Our humanity, to me, isn’t defined by our ability to ‘‘offer it up’’, or seek comfort in some celestial Being, but rather by what we do to help and support, comfort and care, nourish and encourage and motivate and love each other.

Looking to some supernatural Being dehumanizes the human existence, in my opinion. It’s like, I’m human, but only for a short time, then I’ll be a spirit in heaven forever and ever. My humanity is a bit of an inconvenience, getting in the way of my real existence.

I think looking to each other and our animal brothers and sisters strengthens and affirms the human bond, and our bond with all of nature, from the highest order animals, to the bacteria in the soil.

I think I might have gone off on a bit of a ramble in this post. It happens when I think about my friend. Sorry.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

I think I might have gone off on a bit of a ramble in this post. It happens when I think about my friend. Sorry.

Sarah x

Sorry about the death of your friend and how much pain it has caused you.

 

[atheistgirl]

Is Pascal’s Wager considered a cop-out?

I think it is.

I think it’s disingenuous and anyone engaging in it lacks integrity.

If you don’t see the evidence for the existence of any supernatural being, say so. Such a Being must surely give you some credit for at least being honest and being a person of integrity.

Honesty and integrity mean more to me anyhows than gambling to cover the odds of me getting into some where I don’t see any evidence for.

I’ll be honest, and take my chances

Sarah x

 

[Peter_Plato]

You made a few mistakes here. If one can use an existing “evil” as a starting point, and creates something better out of it, this process STILL does not justify the original evil. It does not justify the “implicit permission” or the “active participation” in the evil act. So the principle is exactly as I said it was.

You ought to know better than this.

For one thing, you are claiming that bringing good out of evil somehow “justifies” the evil, which is precisely what I stated before is not the case and in no way is implied by the Catholic position.

Secondly, the concepts of implicit permission or active participation are presumptions on your part. If I came across a bank robbery in progress and proceeded to disarm the would-be robber, would my “active participation” be an “implicit permission” of the act. No it wouldn’t! I have acted to bring good out of an evil act without my actions entailing any responsibility or complicity in the act.

You might argue that God somehow allows evil to bring about a greater good, so he is thereby complicit. However, going back to the robbery example: What if I were to spot a getaway car and in my forward thinking, seeing an opportunity to foil the felons by allowing them to proceed with the robbery, choose instead to disable the vehicle and call the police. Would the fact that I allowed the robbers to proceed unhindered make me culpable and complicit? No because, for one, my interference may have resulted in someone getting killed. And secondly, my forward looking plan to stop the thieves, from my perspective, was a better one - to bring “good out of evil.”

The fact that you were standing in the bank watching me walk by and, under your breath, accusing me of negligence and complicity is irrelevant to the good that eventually transpired. Just because I didn’t inform you of my plans and therefore appeared in your eyes to be ambivalent to the evil, means nothing as to my intentions and final good.

Furthermore, my act to bring about good from the evil intentions of the robbers does not in any way justify them or make their act good in some way. Which is the implication from your statement above.

The statement in the catechism is categorical and not conditional. No matter what good outcome may result at the very end, that outcome cannot justify the means.

It never does! So who is claiming this, except you in a straw man attempt to attack the Church’s position, which you misrepresent?

Second problem is that the catechism also states that “no good can come out of evil”, and that is also a categorical statement, in synch with the other one.

Of course, but that is as trite as saying you can’t get health from a disease. The disease won’t give you good health and if you are looking for it to do so, you are missing the boat. Neither does God magically turn evil into good like turning water into wine. That misses the point, completely.

Like a physician, God can heal the evil and restore the good, in fact, bring about a greater good. That would be like taking a virus, creating a super vaccine from it and restoring health or even making someone healthier than they were.

Third problem is that you forget about the catholic dogma, which states that God is an ACTIVE participant in every event, no matter how good or horrible it is. If I would aim a gun at someone, with the intent to kill, this intent would be futile, if God would not maintain the bullet on its trajectory, would not allow the kinetic energy of the bullet to penetrate and do its damage. God ACTIVELY participates in every rape, murder, torture… and this is not my “invetntion”, it is what the dogma says.

So what are we talking about?

That is a misrepresentation of God “allowing” evil. It does not mean God is actively bringing it about. God maintaining a bullet on its trajectory is part of laws of physics and chemistry that govern the universe. If God intervened in every act and miraculously altered universal laws, then effectively, as CS Lewis argued, he would take away our ability to act as moral agents because intended actions would have no natural consequences. We could do and think whatever we wanted to because God would always “take care of it.”

It would be an interesting experiment to try with one of your children. Run around after them cleaning up their messes, making excuses, writing-off damage, etc. I am certain you would end up with a responsible adult in the end.

God ACTIVELY participates in every rape, murder, torture… and this is not my “invetntion”, it is what the dogma says.

So what are we talking about?

I think it is your “invetntion” but it could be true that God participates in every rape, murder and torture, but not actively on the side of the perpetrator, rather passively, at one with the victim. The crucifixion is an icon of that (in the sense of representing the deeper truth being signified).

 

[mgoforth]

I think it is.

I think it’s disingenuous and anyone engaging in it lacks integrity.

If you don’t see the evidence for the existence of any supernatural being, say so. Such a Being must surely give you some credit for at least being honest and being a person of integrity.

Honesty and integrity mean more to me anyhows than gambling to cover the odds of me getting into some where I don’t see any evidence for.

I’ll be honest, and take my chances

Sarah x

I won’t pretend to know what God “must” do or what He may give us credit for, but I fail to see how “playing the odds” as a first step toward true faith shows a lack of integrity. It’s simply the smart thing to do…ask any bookie in Vegas.

I find it ironic that you say Pascal’s Wager is disinginuous…yet you say “If God is real, I’m sure He’ll let me off the hook for not believing.” If you truly don’t believe, why are you putting get-out-of-jail-free-card conditions in your answer? That doesn’t seem like you’re just “saying so”. You’re saying “I don’t believe…but just in case I’m wrong I still want to get into Heaven.” How is that really so different?

 

[mgoforth]

That is a misrepresentation of God “allowing” evil. It does not mean God is actively bringing it about. God maintaining a bullet on its trajectory is part of laws of physics and chemistry that govern the universe. If God intervened in every act and miraculously altered universal laws, then effectively, as CS Lewis argued, he would take away our ability to act as moral agents because intended actions would have no natural consequences. We could do and think whatever we wanted to because God would always “take care of it.”

It would be an interesting experiment to try with one of your children. Run around after them cleaning up their messes, making excuses, writing-off damage, etc. I am certain you would end up with a responsible adult in the end.

Yes, that’s what the thread is all about. God must allow us some breathing room to make our decisions if we ever want to claim that free will exists. Unfortunately some people’s decisions end up harming others, or themselves. The consequence of making the wrong choice ultimately is Hell. But that’s the only, possible, logical way that Heaven could be called a free choice on our part. Heaven can’t exist for free creatures without a Hell.

 

[atheistgirl]

I find it ironic that you say Pascal’s Wager is disinginuous…yet you say “If God is real, I’m sure He’ll let me off the hook for not believing.”

I don’t think I said God would let me off the hook.

I said I’ll be honest, true to myself, and take my chances.

I’m assuming here for the sake of argument that being honest, truthful and having integrity would mean something to God. If I remember correctly, God didn’t much like hypocrites.

If my position on believe in a God doesn’t change and being honest and true and having integrity counts for squat and sends me to hell - so be it. That’s the chance I’m willing to take. No, that’s the only thing I can do. I can’t pretend to believe in something I don’t.

There’s no ‘‘get-out-of-jail-free-card’’ here.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Sorry about the death of your friend and how much pain it has caused you.

:hug1:

Sarah x