Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Peter_Plato]

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.

This is not the Catholic position by the way. The resurrection of the body means that humanity will be glorified. Our present existence is not a bit of inconvenience, but more like a fetal stage in our development.

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

I was deeply moved.

This also made me think that suffering is a direct result of love. Love is self-giving and the more a person loves, the more one becomes vulnerable to the possibility of suffering.

About twenty years ago my parents were in a horrendous car accident. Their van blew a front tire, went through a retaining wall and tumbled 300 meters into a steep valley. A clump of tree saved them from dropping another 1000 meters into the bottom of the valley. Of the six passengers in the van, five walked out. My father suffered a severe spinal chord injury at the base of his neck.

When paramedics reached him, he was pronounced dead at the scene, but when everyone else was safe, the paramedics went back and found a faint pulse.

He went through eleven months in and out of a coma, our family not knowing whether he would come through. In the end, he did, but he was paralyzed from his shoulders down. He lived for eleven years in a state of near total immobility. His mind was clear and although depression frequently overwhelmed him, he was often congenial with a positive outlook.

I often asked why God kept him alive, but in the end I firmly believe it was my dad’s choice. We, his children, were all grown and had families, but my mother would have been alone at her home. My thought is that he could not bear her loneliness and so he suffered with his own difficulties out of love for her. When he died nine years ago, my mother’s care was the last thing he spoke about.

If he hadn’t loved my mother, he could very easily have chosen not to suffer with the burden he had to carry, but he did. Suffering, I believe, is a natural consequence of self-giving love. Evil, on the other hand, is quite different.

I could go on for a long time on this, but I won’t.

In some sense, I lost my faith shortly after the accident, but in retrospect what I lost was faith in a “god concept” I had, which, as it turns out, was not God at all, but a shallow portrait I had cobbled together from experience, reflection and reading.

 

[mgoforth]

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

I don’t believe God will let anyone off the hook for sincerely believing that He doesn’t exist once that person has been presented with the teaching of the Catholic Church. We all have to stand judgment, although the circumstances will be taken into account. But to say that you or anyone else on these forums can’t believe and God may consider that as acceptable calls into question God’s omnipotence. In effect it’s saying that God wasn’t able to sufficiently present the case for His own existence, therefore it’s not anyone’s fault but His if someone honestly chooses not to believe.

On the contrary, God gives everyone in the world (after they reach the age of reason) at least one chance, and enough information, to make an “Accept” or “Reject” decision which He will hold them to if they don’t subsequently change their mind. It won’t be a survey in the mail that He sends us, but perhaps some difficulty in our lives that we’re unable to conquer on our own and have to choose to turn to Him. Or it could be an actual formal invitation to become a Christian. It will be slightly or vastly different for each person.

 

[mgoforth]

I could go on for a long time on this, but I won’t.

Peter, I’m very sorry to hear about what happened to your father. I’ll pray that God heals your soul in this life or the next. Sarah, I’m also praying for you after hearing your story, even though I neglected to mention it before.

 

[atheistgirl]

In some sense, I lost my faith shortly after the accident, but in retrospect what I lost was faith in a “god concept” I had, which, as it turns out, was not God at all, but a shallow portrait I had cobbled together from experience, reflection and reading.

You make some interesting points.

Your dad sounds like he was a very special man. :hug1:

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

In effect it’s saying that God wasn’t able to sufficiently present the case for His own existence, therefore it’s not anyone’s fault but His if someone honestly chooses not to believe.

Leaving aside direct visions and miracles, God pretty much depends on His people to get the word out.

This is good news for me

I’m gonna stand there on Judgement Day, point down here, and say:

Oh C’mon, gimme a break. Enough already. Have you seen the people I’ve had to deal with on CAF



Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Leaving aside direct visions and miracles, God pretty much depends on His people to get the word out.

Actually, the existence of God can be proven logically using reason alone…which I know you’re already aware of and completely disagree with.

This is good news for me

I’m gonna stand there on Judgement Day, point down here, and say:

Oh C’mon, gimme a break. Enough already. Have you seen the people I’ve had to deal with on CAF

Sarah x

More likely that we’ll all be crapping our spiritual pants on our Particular Judgment Day until we hear what our reward will be. I think it will be incredibly awe inspiring, humbling, scary, overwhelming, etc to come face to face with an infinite Being. I realize you’re joking, of course…but some people seem to say what you just did sincerely. “I’m gonna say this to God…” Yeah right! We’ll be more speechless than we ever imagined possible on that day until we hear “Heaven” or “Hell”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is good news for me

I’m gonna stand there on Judgement Day, point down here, and say:

Oh C’mon, gimme a break. Enough already. Have you seen the people I’ve had to deal with on CAF



Sarah x

He already knows what you have to deal with. Consider:

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not…
(1 Cor 1:26-28)

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Nothingness, or annihilation-ism is a popular suggestion, but it falls short logically for several reasons, and therefore I thank you for giving us a chance to examine why it doesn’t make sense.

First of all, it doesn’t line up with Christ’s teachings about Hell. Christ teaches that Hell is a form of eternal existence, not annihilation:

"Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out – the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation." John 5: 28-29

“And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matthew 25:46

"And the smoke from their torture will go up forever and ever, and those who worship the beast and his image will have no rest day or night, along with anyone who receives the mark of his name." Revelation 14:11

Second, you claim that God established a system of punishments for us…which is not accurate. God gives us the choice to exist with Him or to escape from Him, but He also created us in His image, and one aspect of that image is immortality. So whichever choice we make will be our experience after death for eternity. The first option obviously results in Heaven, the second option results in being away from God completely…which is the principle torment of Hell - knowing that we could have been happy forever and chose otherwise. That’s the meaning when Christians correctly say that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, we send ourselves there.

And the best argument against annihilation-ism is the one I’ve already given. If God simply destroyed the bodies and souls of everyone who chose to live apart from Him, then He wouldn’t be truly honoring their choice. People who die apart from God’s grace aren’t choosing not to exist, they’re choosing to exist…but they want to exist apart from God. They’re saying “I don’t need you God, so leave me alone.” That’s Hell.

reknew.org/2008/01/are-you-an-annihilationist-and-if-so-why/

An interesting Biblical defense of annihilationism.

Also, if hell is really a total separation from God, how can anything, even a soul, exist? For God is life and existence is in His very essence itself (Aquinas). Anyone or anything separated from God, even one’s soul, would ultimately cease to exist.

Either way, I think it is wise to not dwell on matters beyond our understanding. Whatever happens to those who reject God, we know that God’s love, mercy, and justice will ultimately reign. So whatever happens to the condemned, it will have to be coherent to the character of God.

I will say that the traditional notion of hell–an eternity of torment and torture–seems to be out of line with God’s character. It serves no purpose of rehabilitation, eternity is an absurd amount of time for temporal crimes, and annihilation of the soul would be an act of mercy compared to such an existence. Just my two cents.

 

[Trurl]

HansTrapist:

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

The dogmas, however say exactly that (right here) :

1. God keeps all created things in existence.
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures.

Number 69 says that God keep everything in existence. Number 70 says that God co-operates in EVERY act, rape, murder, genocide… all included.

mgoforth:

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.

You gonna kill me with these remarks. God being “compassionate” toward the evil people? But does not help the innocent victims? And I wonder, how is this “theory” (aka: empty speculation) going to be substantiated? (…and I am not sure about the universe!)

mgoforth:

Suffering now is clearly the smarter choice, if it helps us reach eternal happiness.

Whatever rocks your boat. I wonder if it were uncharitable to wish that all of you would be “helped” to reach eternal happiness in such a manner? Not sure about it, so I will leave it a question.

mgoforth:

Is Pascal’s Wager considered a cop-out?

Not exactly. Pascal’s wager is not a cop-out, it is an idiotic dilemma, which is rejected by the smart theists.
Peter Plato:

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.

I never said it was.

We are talking about the so called “greater good defense” concerning the PoE. It says that “God allows evil to happen, so that some unspecified greater good can out of it”. First, that “greater good” is never specified, not even in theory, and second, it is not the evil is being “justified”, rather God’s “non-interference” is attempted to be white-washed. And even if some actual “greater good” would be be the end result, it would never justify God’s “non-interference” as the “end does not justify the means” as the teaching says, and God’s non-interference is at least part of the “means”. It is God’s lack of interference that the believers try to justify… got it?

Your robbery example is incorrect. Trying to interfere with a robbery, and attempting to thwart it, is the proper action. Allowing the robbery to take place is where the problem is, IF you have the ways and means to prevent it.
Peter Plato:

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.

Not at all. The church also says that God very rarely interferes with the creation. The quote from the dogmas above says the exact opposite. So you can always pick and choose from among the contradictory teachings. Convenient, huh? If God made the ball rolling, and created the laws of nature, then there is no need to maintain everything in existence. If there is need to maintain things, then the laws of NATURE are just our concoctions, which have nothing to do with NATURE. And dogma #70 explicitly says that God co-operates in EVERY act. Nothing could be clearer.
Peter Plato:

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.”

Lewis is an <insert an insulting, pejorative word here>. First, a well designed system would never need interference at all. A truly well designed and properly created system cannot be destroyed, it will always work as intended. Second, the interference does not have to be “visible”, it could all look “natural”. Third, there is no need to have the ability to do harm to others. What is the point to allow a poor girl to be gang-raped, tortured and murdered? Our freedom “to worship God” or “NOT to worship God” is the only freedom we ever need in order to be moral agents. In such a case God would have his “handful” of people who will go to heaven (Jesus said, so, remember) and the rest can be handed over to the “outsourced” agency to be tortured forver, thus their screams would provide a nice counterpoint to the “hosanna” sung by those handful in heaven.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I hope you don’t mind me butting in. I found your remarks interesting and some challenging, so I wanted to give it a go

The dogmas, however say exactly that (right here) :

1. God keeps all created things in existence.
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures.

Number 69 says that God keep everything in existence. Number 70 says that God co-operates in EVERY act, rape, murder, genocide… all included.

We are talking about the so called “greater good defense” concerning the PoE. It says that “God allows evil to happen, so that some unspecified greater good can out of it”. First, that “greater good” is never specified, not even in theory, and second, it is not the evil is being “justified”, rather God’s “non-interference” is attempted to be white-washed. And even if some actual “greater good” would be be the end result, it would never justify God’s “non-interference” as the “end does not justify the means” as the teaching says, and God’s non-interference is at least part of the “means”. It is God’s lack of interference that the believers try to justify… got it?

What do you think 70. means by “co-operates?” Is sustaining something necessarily the same as doing it? God sustains murder, rape, genocide, etc. insofar as God sustains free will. Moral agency is a meaningless concept in a reality where evil is not an option. If God ceases to sustain evil acts, He in essence ceases moral agency, as well as Free will. This has a lot to do with a statement you make about God allowing evil for the greater good. Perhaps this greater good is not some form of consequentialism. Maybe it’s reverse. We start with the greater good which is free will/moral agency and we end with good acts and evil acts and all the morally neutral acts in between. Does this justify evil? no. Does this justify God’s allowing and sustaining of evil actions? Why doesn’t it?

I think an analogy is like traffic lights. I hate stopping at a red light and havig to wait FOREVER for it to turn green. Hating red lights should not be confused with hating traffic lights which are for the greater good. Its also a beautiful ting whenever the light turns green. Evil is evil, the severity of that will never change. However, free will and moral agency are beautiful goods.

Your robbery example is incorrect. Trying to interfere with a robbery, and attempting to thwart it, is the proper action. Allowing the robbery to take place is where the problem is, IF you have the ways and means to prevent it.

If you are a human person, yes. Ethics must have a proper metaphysics and teleology. It would be wrong for a human being to not interfere with a robbery and thwart if that person had the means. The question is why? Then we have to ask, is God susceptible t the same Ethics? This would have to be no. We then have to look at such factors as those stated above. Is it immoral for God to not interfere with a human moral action? Why would it be? Do you have reasons or is it because it simply appears self-evident to you?

Not at all. The church also says that God very rarely interferes with the creation. The quote from the dogmas above says the exact opposite. So you can always pick and choose from among the contradictory teachings. Convenient, huh? If God made the ball rolling, and created the laws of nature, then there is no need to maintain everything in existence. If there is need to maintain things, then the laws of NATURE are just our concoctions, which have nothing to do with NATURE. And dogma #70 explicitly says that God co-operates in EVERY act. Nothing could be clearer.

Birds of a feather flock together. Opposites attract. Both are proverbs, but they are contradictory. Which one is true? The answer is both and their truth cannot be divorced from their context or proper perspective.

I think you haven’t considered that, if God legislated the laws of nature, God would be the one sustaining or “co-operating” in the laws of nature. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why Deism could never be true. God is always involved, though He may not always be involved in the way you might like Him to be or think He ought to be. So what ought God do and why ought He do it? If God does exist, would you even be able to know the answer to that? The real answer is no, since in order to know the ought of a thing we need to know the essence of a thing. To say God is “good” would require a knowledge of what it means to be good and what it would mean for God to be good, but this too requires a knowledge of essence that we don’t have. All we can say is that God, by definitions, is the greatest of all possible beings and must therefore be whole and complete in His essence.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Lewis is an <insert an insulting, pejorative word here>. First, a well designed system would never need interference at all. A truly well designed and properly created system cannot be destroyed, it will always work as intended. Second, the interference does not have to be “visible”, it could all look “natural”. Third, there is no need to have the ability to do harm to others. What is the point to allow a poor girl to be gang-raped, tortured and murdered? Our freedom “to worship God” or “NOT to worship God” is the only freedom we ever need in order to be moral agents. In such a case God would have his “handful” of people who will go to heaven (Jesus said, so, remember) and the rest can be handed over to the “outsourced” agency to be tortured forver, thus their screams would provide a nice counterpoint to the “hosanna” sung by those handful in heaven.

So a “well designed” system would lack free will or moral agency? Free will, if it is well designed, can choose to be destructive or self-destructive. A system cannot be divorced from its purpose, because a system can only be well designed in as far as it fulfills its purpose. It seems to me that free will is working exactly as it was intended.

I agree with your second point, though I’m not sure how that refutes anything. How do you know God is not interfering in natural looking ways and we would just never know because it was so natural looking? Furthermore, I don’t think it would be inconsistent to say that God could interfere by natural means, which goes back to God’s co-operation.

Third, this goes back to free will and moral agency. You say all we would need is the option to “worship God” or “not worship God,” my response- that is the only moral option we have currently. Sex is a neutral ting that can be used to worship God or not. Having passionate sex wit your wife is a good thing and worships God. Raping someone is evil and obviously not worshiping God. Your assumption is that “not worshiping” God does not hurt other people other than yourself. Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself” and “what you have done to the least of these you have done to me also.” Our moral action is a decision to worship, and worship must be intentional and habitual.

Last point, the problem of evil is only a dilemma in evil “exists.” If evil exists, the moral argument is in full swing. If it does not exist it isn’t a problem at all. Therefore, the problem leaves with some significant questions to wrestle through, But it certainly does not refute the existence or goodness of God, for if God were evil, evil would cease to be evil and would become good. This is because God is the highest of all goods. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne are Christian philosopher who have done some good work on analyzing the problem of evil.

Your questions are understandable and fruitful. However, I think it makes more sense to say God and evil exist then it is to say that neither are true. I empathize with you skepticism, but remember to bring your open-mindedness and your own empathy as well.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

I must begin apologizing for my English. I’m from Italy, and studied English at school, I’ve never lived in English language countries.

(right here) :

1. God keeps all created things in existence.
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures.

Of what kind of dogmas are we taking about? The reference is a link to a summary of a book written in 1974. In it the references are imprecise: (Sent. communis.), (Sent. Certa.), (De fide.)…
It should be better to make precise references.
Then, first, it is better referring to “The professions of faith” of the Catholicism (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P13.HTM); and then, for example, to Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger).
Anyway, not all the definitions have the same relevance for the profession of faith.
Moreover, taking phrases out of their context could be hazardous… For example, one could say: “if “God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures””, our God it’s a Pantheistic one…

 

[tonyrey]

I must begin apologizing for my English. I’m from Italy, and studied English at school, I’ve never lived in English language countries.

Of what kind of dogmas are we taking about? The reference is a link to a summary of a book written in 1974. In it the references are imprecise: (Sent. communis.), (Sent. Certa.), (De fide.)…
It should be better to make precise references.
Then, first, it is better referring to “The professions of faith” of the Catholicism (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P13.HTM); and then, for example, to Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger).
Anyway, not all the definitions have the same relevance for the profession of faith.
Moreover, taking phrases out of their context could be hazardous… For example, one could say: “if “God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures””, our God it’s a Pantheistic one…

Welcome to the forum, Alberto!

Snippets can certainly be misleading because “co-operates” can mean “helps” - which would condone evil! It would be more accurate to state that God permits His sustaining power to be abused because it is a lesser evil than making us incapable of love.

 

[Trurl]

ApologiaSophia:

If you are a human person, yes. Ethics must have a proper metaphysics and teleology. It would be wrong for a human being to not interfere with a robbery and thwart if that person had the means. The question is why? Then we have to ask, is God susceptible t the same Ethics? This would have to be no.

Sorry, I am simply not interested in talking to someone who employs the fallacy of special pleading.

 

[tonyrey]

T
We are talking about the so called “greater good defense” concerning the PoE. It says that “God allows evil to happen, so that some unspecified greater good can out of it”. First, that “greater good” is never specified, not even in theory, and second, it is not the evil is being “justified”, rather God’s “non-interference” is attempted to be white-washed.

False! The greater good is the capacity for love without which persons are reduced to animals.

 

[mgoforth]

I must begin apologizing for my English. I’m from Italy, and studied English at school, I’ve never lived in English language countries.

Hi Alberto. Your English is very good, especially for someone who’s never lived in an English-speaking country. You’ve done a better job than I ever would with Italian!

 

[mgoforth]

Sorry, I am simply not interested in talking to someone who employs the fallacy of special pleading.

A quick reading of the “fallacy of special pleading” suggests that employing the reasoning “I can’t understand what God does, because He’s infinite and I’m finite” would be a fallacy?? How can that be? Am I mis-understanding the principle you’re referring to here?

 

[atheistgirl]

A quick reading of the “fallacy of special pleading” suggests that employing the reasoning “I can’t understand what God does, because He’s infinite and I’m finite” would be a fallacy?? How can that be? Am I mis-understanding the principle you’re referring to here?

Saying we’re susceptible to a certain set of ethics, but God isn’t, because He’s God - is special pleading. The only reason given that God isn’t, is because He’s God. Special pleading on behalf of God.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Saying we’re susceptible to a certain set of ethics, but God isn’t, because He’s God - is special pleading. The only reason given that God isn’t, is because He’s God. Special pleading on behalf of God.

Sarah x

Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense.

I agree that God abides by the same set of ethics that we do, although I prefer not to use the term “susceptible” because it implies that God is governed by ethics, rather than being the true source of all ethics and morality. Indeed, God could never violate a moral principle because they all derive from His very essence. He is perfect morality.

My answer, which I believe I’ve already stated in this thread, would be that God is fully in accord with the moral principles that He created. If it seems to us at times that He violates them, using the example of poor Madeline McCann for instance (which I sincerely hope we don’t have to rehash yet again in this same thread :coolinoff, then it’s because we’re not capable of understanding how God remains fully in accord in those specific cases. We’re not capable of understanding everything God does because He is infinite and we are finite. And if that last part is a violation of “special pleading” or any other fallacy, then I’m totally comfortable with being accused of violating them…because they’re incorrect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry, I am simply not interested in talking to someone who employs the fallacy of special pleading.

Special pleading applies both ways. You are holding God responsible for not interfering when you claim he should be micromanaging all actions of all agents in his creation. Why are you not equally holding yourself responsible for not micromanaging creation? Apparently because you do not have the means to do so. It seems, therefore, that ways and means do matter in terms of how beings should be held accountable.

Originally Posted by ApologiaSophia
If you are a human person, yes. Ethics must have a proper metaphysics and teleology. It would be wrong for a human being to not interfere with a robbery and thwart if that person had the means. The question is why? Then we have to ask, is God susceptible t the same Ethics? This would have to be no.

ApologiaSophia’s point is that God has different ways and means and therefore a different set of options available to him.

On the other hand you do not have the means, knowledge or capacity to take into account all the possible factors that God would have at his disposal as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos. By applying “special pleading” you are claiming that ways and means should be completely ignored in determining what actions God should take in certain situations, i.e., that God should act precisely as you would in any given situation. It would seem a case of you doing the special pleading. Pleading as you do that your point of view is the “special one” that God should be held to. God, according to your special pleading, should act in precisely the way that you would given your capacities in any given situation despite the fact that he has access to infinitely greater resources than you to make decisions.

So how is excusing yourself from acting as an omniscient, omnipotent being might, not a case of special pleading, when making a case that God could act differently from your point of view restricted to a locale in time and space with limited intelligence, is dismissible as special pleading? Tit for tat, no?

You seem to be saying ways and means do count in some instances (i.e., the nature and accountability of human actions), but not in others (the nature and accountability of God’s actions). This would seem very inconsistent of you.

Sorry, I am simply not interested in talking to someone who employs the fallacy of special pleading.

Does this mean you will stop carrying on conversations with yourself?