Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[sophion]

Why don’t you put that in the suggestion box?

I suspect that an omniscient and omnibenevolent Being would have considered that already.

Since all this pertains to the ”final things" and ultimately “up to God” I am not sure that basing present actions on this kind of speculation or subscribing to disbelief because of our limited (and potentially errant) perspective is a wise choice of action.

have you tried suspecting that christianity got it all wrong? did you know that in the original jewish belief “hell” and “purgatory” is one and the same? there is no eternal torture. hell is for cleaning the soul and everyone eventually returns to G-D.

christianity’s version of hell is totally senselsess. especially if you insist that “god is love”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

have you tried suspecting that christianity got it all wrong? did you know that in the original jewish belief “hell” and “purgatory” is one and the same? there is no eternal torture. hell is for cleaning the soul and everyone eventually returns to G-D.

christianity’s version of hell is totally senselsess. especially if you insist that “god is love”.

I don’t flatter myself into thinking that I can possibly figure out something that is essentially not in the realm of possibility for me to do so. I did not create the universe and each individual in it, so for me to speculate and advise God about things I have no ability to grasp, even minimally, is a position I would prefer to avoid.

 

[davidv]

have you tried suspecting that christianity got it all wrong? did you know that in the original jewish belief “hell” and “purgatory” is one and the same? there is no eternal torture. hell is for cleaning the soul and everyone eventually returns to G-D.[/quoe]
Why, after nearly 2000 years of consistent teaching, should we suspect it wrong. I think you are grasping at straws.

christianity’s version of hell is totally senselsess. especially if you insist that “god is love”.

 

[sophion]

So you claim. I have not seen you provide a rational argument to justify taking your word for it.

my rational arguments:

1. hell is purgatory in judaism:
   askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html
2. international law prohibits torture. we know its wrong. are we better than your version of god. or is it possible you just got it all wrong?
3. everyone knows you dont systematically hurt the one you love.
4. people learn.
5. self preservation is a general characteristic of life. by this everyone would do whatever it takes to get out of torture.
6. a life of suffering is no way to live. for that matter people would rather pass away than to live a life of hopeless pain. so its merciful to let people stay dead forever than to resurrect them into a life of eternal torture.

---

Christianity’s version of hell is senseless, unrealistic and immoral.

 

[Peter_Plato]

have you tried suspecting that christianity got it all wrong?

I have tried suspecting that, but came to the conclusion that Christianity got 86.387923% of what I can understand essentially correct, so the remaining portion that I don’t yet have access to, I chalk up to, “remains to be seen.”

I don’t find it feasible to think my way of understanding an idea is necessarily correct, especially when I don’t (and can’t) thoroughly understand it.

I have difficulty with assuming myself to be an omniscient observer. I don’t know much, if anything at all, but I do enjoy pointing out that often “skeptics” have an agenda they are trying to casually slip in underneath their supposed skepticism.

 

[davidv]

my rational arguments:

1. hell is purgatory in judaism:
   askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html
2. international law prohibits torture. we know its wrong. are we better than your version of god. or is it possible you just got it all wrong?
3. everyone knows you dont systematically hurt the one you love.
4. people learn.
5. self preservation is a general characteristic of life. by this everyone would do whatever it takes to get out of torture.
6. a life of suffering is no way to live. for that matter people would rather pass away than to live a life of hopeless pain. so its merciful to let people stay dead forever than to resurrect them into a life of eternal torture.

---

Christianity’s version of hell is senseless, unrealistic and immoral.

Invalid logic.
#1 is an equivocation.

Your conclusion cannot be accepted.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. self preservation is a general characteristic of life. by this everyone would do whatever it takes to get out of torture.

I hate to quibble but what if “self” preservation is precisely the problem. (He who would save his life will lose it.)

If transformation (metanoia) is what we are called to, then self-preservation could be the contentious issue. Hell could very well be holding on to a “self” that has essentially gone bad and the refusal to give that up leaves God in a moral morass (figuratively speaking, of course). His respect for your free will means he won’t take your “self” from you without your permission. Keep in mind that “life” could in some sense be different from self. He could take your life from you because that is his to give or take, but perhaps, once given, your “self,” has a kind of irrevocable quality to it.

Of course, this is just speculation, but it does point out that perhaps your conclusions are a bit premature.

 

[sophion]

Invalid logic.
#1 is an equivocation.

Your conclusion cannot be accepted.

Wow great rebutal! lol!

of course you cannot accept it since you are still deep in faith. but you cannot really refute them. and thats your loss.

 

[davidv]

Wow great rebutal! lol!

of course you cannot accept it since you are still deep in faith. but you cannot really refute them. and thats your loss.

It has nothing to to with my faith (of which you are ill equiped to judge). It has everything to do with not accepting bad logic to justify a position.

 

[sophion]

It has nothing to to with my faith (of which you are ill equiped to judge). It has everything to do with not accepting bad logic to justify a position.

really? so why cant point out exactly how the ‘logic’ went bad?

 

[sophion]

I hate to quibble but what if “self” preservation is precisely the problem. (He who would save his life will lose it.)

If transformation (metanoia) is what we are called to, then self-preservation could be the contentious issue. Hell could very well be holding on to a “self” that has essentially gone bad and the refusal to give that up leaves God in a moral morass (figuratively speaking, of course). His respect for your free will means he won’t take your “self” from you without your permission. Keep in mind that “life” could in some sense be different from self. He could take your life from you because that is his to give or take, but perhaps, once given, your “self,” has a kind of irrevocable quality to it.

Of course, this is just speculation, but it does point out that perhaps your conclusions are a bit premature.

do consider point#6 “a life of suffering is no way to live”

So how do we reconcile #5 & #6? SIMPLE. By accepting the obvious solution to their misery: repentance. “GOD FORGIVE ME, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING!!!” people are a lot more inclined to correct their way of thinking after experiencing first hand the painful consequences of their actions. right?

Like thos Suicide Bombers, how can you blame them for doing such things- they were raised in that mind set! If Jesus appeared before them as God I’m sure they would accept the fact that Islam is wrong. So would the Atheists. Me, I would become Catholic if i see proof of it- like Mother Mary appearing before me. And God knows I make a very devoted believer!!! Full of love!

 

[Peter_Plato]

do consider point#6 “a life of suffering is no way to live”

So how do we reconcile #5 & #6? SIMPLE. By accepting the obvious solution to their misery: repentance. “GOD FORGIVE ME, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING!!!” people are a lot more inclined to correct their way of thinking after experiencing first hand the painful consequences of their actions. right?

Perhaps that is precisely what purgatory is about.

Like thos Suicide Bombers, how can you blame them for doing such things- they were raised in that mind set!

Which excuses everyone for everything they do.

If Jesus appeared before them as God I’m sure they would accept the fact that Islam is wrong. So would the Atheists. Me, I would become Catholic if i see proof of it- like Mother Mary appearing before me. And God knows I make a very devoted believer!!! Full of love!

Why is such a proof necessary?
If Christianity means anything it isn’t about being convinced by some miracle, but about the nature of truth, goodness and beauty. If you want to ignore those in favor of wondrous proof, wondrous proof could be a convincing reason to favour deception, evil and ugliness so long as compellingly wondrous signs accompanied them.
Blessed is he who has not seen, but has believed.

I don’t mean to be glib here, but it seems to me that dismissing Christianity because of the doctrine of hell is much like finding a loophole to get yourself out of a just consequence for your actions.

If God is infinitely good, he does not tolerate evil. Love does not tolerate malevolent hate.
If a being insists, despite all efforts on the part of God, on “being” evil (not just committing an evil act out of error or emotional impulse, but actually “being” evil,) then why are you attempting to defend such a being and that they should “get-off” or have their sentence commuted in some way? It appears that you are arguing on behalf of the proposition that there ought to be a loophole that serves to excuse every possibility of evil, rather than on the importance of ultimate justice. Why would that be desirable?

What is more important?

1. That beings ought to be just, good, loving and caring?
2. That beings should be free to do whatever they will without bearing the consequences of their actions because any final consequences ought to be, in the final analysis, lifted?

If you think 2) is more important, you have undermined 1). In other words, your claim is: a persistently pernicious being ought to have the same final end as a chronically benevolent one. Their ontological state should make no difference to their “reward.” Essentially your position is that good and evil should both be rewarded equally, in the end.

True, we should not choose good merely to avoid the possibility of “hell.” However, good should be chosen because of the good consequences that ensue and one of those could reasonably be the avoidance of one’s own torment. As a corollary, one should certainly avoid evil because of the evil consequences, one of which being the probability of turning oneself into a pernicious being who will in the end suffer torment as a just consequence.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

my rational arguments:

1. hell is purgatory in judaism:
   askmoses.com/en/article/215,164/Does-Judaism-believe-in-Heaven-and-Hell.html
2. international law prohibits torture. we know its wrong. are we better than your version of god. or is it possible you just got it all wrong?
3. everyone knows you dont systematically hurt the one you love.
4. people learn.
5. self preservation is a general characteristic of life. by this everyone would do whatever it takes to get out of torture.
6. a life of suffering is no way to live. for that matter people would rather pass away than to live a life of hopeless pain. so its merciful to let people stay dead forever than to resurrect them into a life of eternal torture.

---

Christianity’s version of hell is senseless, unrealistic and immoral.

#1 is erroneous. Jews believe in a age to come, but may of them believe in different things about it. Some believe that the Gentiles will be their slaves in the age to come. Some believe Gentiles will not resurrect and make it into the age to come. Some believe that only God-fearing Gentiles will make it into the Age to come. Just because on Jewish website supports your opinion does not mean all of Judaism agrees. The Sadducee’s were Jews, and they did not even believe in an afterlife.

Also, not that I agree with them, but the Church has historically had Universalists. Origen is a prime example. I can find many a Christian today that believes in Universalism. They miss the point however. Heaven is to be in full, total, and constant communion with God. Hell is separation from God. Unless one truly desires God, they cannot truly desire heaven. Moreover, we should concede that our knowledge of the afterlife is limited sine all of us are alive. What we DO know is that it is better to die in fellowship with God by faith in Jesus Christ than to die without that. At the end of the day that’s all we need to know.

Besides, no one believes in Christianity because they believe in hell. People believe in hell because they believe in Christianity. If God does exist, if Jesus is risen from the dead, than hell is true. Whether its just or whatever is not something we could answer with the limited knowledge we have. What maters is if it is true. In other words, accusing hell of being “cruel and unjust” is a fruitless discussion because you can’t know that because you do not actually know what hell is like or why it exists. You should either attack the core doctrines of Christianity like God or the resurrection of Christ since the existence of hell is dependent on the truth of those two factors.

#2 is a common view of hell, but there would be great debate as to whether that is an accurate one. You believe hell is eternal torment, which I admit has been a depiction of hell for a LONG time. However, what we know is that hell=separation from God. Whatever that means, whatever that looks like, it is certainly undesirable. This is why hell is “unpleasant.”

#3 ^

#4 people do learn, but hell is not about learning lessons. Hell is something that is earned. Hell is a result of final judgement.

#5 except for people who commit suicide. Also, repenting for self=preservation is probably the wrong motive. Since heaven is eternal fellowship with God, one should repent because they want to fellowship with God.

#6 Again, hell may not be eternal torture per say. Again, who can really know what hell is or what it is like exactly? Perhaps you should look into annihilationism?

 

[sophion]

Perhaps that is precisely what purgatory is about.

but this is about hell.

Which excuses everyone for everything they do.

spiritually speaking, of course. put yourself in their shoes. you sincerely believe in catholicism, but what if Islam is the true religion? do you deserve to burn in hell for being sincerely wrong?

Why is such a proof necessary?
If Christianity means anything it isn’t about being convinced by some miracle, but about the nature of truth, goodness and beauty. If you want to ignore those in favor of wondrous proof, wondrous proof could be a convincing reason to favour deception, evil and ugliness so long as compellingly wondrous signs accompanied them.
Blessed is he who has not seen, but has believed.

Remember the Apostle Thomas and what he was famous for?

funny guy. he was with jesus supposedly seeing all those alleged wonders. and still asked for solid proof that he rose from the dead. and for that he still made it as a saint.

I don’t mean to be glib here, but it seems to me that dismissing Christianity because of the doctrine of hell is much like finding a loophole to get yourself out of a just consequence for your actions.

thats just one of many many factors.

If God is infinitely good, he does not tolerate evil.

which is why the christian concept of hell is false. torture is evil, inhumane and completely unproductive. no true merciful god would do such a thing.

If a being insists, despite all efforts on the part of God, on “being” evil (not just committing an evil act out of error or emotional impulse, but actually “being” evil,) then why are you attempting to defend such a being and that they should “get-off” or have their sentence commuted in some way?

you know, some toddlers insist on doing their own thing. does that mean you just let your kid go? “have it your way”?
no even if you know she would go ballistic, you just have to drag them back into safety.
we are toddlers compared to an infinite god. much of us dont really understand what we are doing.

It appears that you are arguing on behalf of the proposition that there ought to be a loophole that serves to excuse every possibility of evil, rather than on the importance of ultimate justice. Why would that be desirable?

where is the justice in torturing someone for unfriending and blocking you on facebook?
just saying. you know what i mean.

What is more important?

1. That beings ought to be just, good, loving and caring?
2. That beings should be free to do whatever they will without bearing the consequences of their actions because any final consequences ought to be, in the final analysis, lifted?

there should be consequences. however in the case of hell, the consequence far outweighs anything. its draconian and unrealistic.

Essentially your position is that good and evil should both be rewarded equally, in the end.

rewarded? no. as the jews believe good should be rewarded and evil corrected.

As a corollary, one should certainly avoid evil because of the evil consequences, one of which being the probability of turning oneself into a pernicious being who will in the end suffer torment as a just consequence.

most of the time the consequences are already suffered on earth.
you cheat -you lose your family.
you steal -you are fined and go to jail.
you kill -you spend the rest of your life in jail.
you take a false religion -you lose time & money and have to endure criticism.

 

[PRmerger]

you ASSUME that people in hell would be forever defiant.

And you ASSUME that people in eternity can change.

You base this assumption on what? Please cite some empirical evidence for this paradigm that you seem to be espousing without any apparent proof.

 

[PRmerger]

This “hypothetical” person is using “suffering” as a replacement for “evil.”

An astute and incisive observation.

To say the Church would claim that one should never use an evil means to attain a good is quite a distinct claim from saying that one should never allow suffering to attain a good. Evil is not the same as suffering,

Indeed.

That is a basic error that many folks succumb to.

 

[PRmerger]

even if such insane people exists, why keep tormenting them? why not just put them down like what we do to an injured horse?

Because once a soul is created, it exists for eternity.

 

[PRmerger]

christianity’s version of hell is totally senselsess. especially if you insist that “god is love”.

Hell is nothing more than God’s love in action. He provides a place for those who find his love so odious that can’t stand to be in his presence.

 

[PRmerger]

If Jesus appeared before them as God I’m sure they would accept the fact that Islam is wrong.

Perhaps you have forgotten that Jesus did appear before a multitude of people–most of whom did not accept his revelation.

Me, I would become Catholic if i see proof of it- like Mother Mary appearing before me. And God knows I make a very devoted believer!!! Full of love!

God gives you just enough light to find him, if you seek him, but not too much light that you would be compelled to believe against your will. God is too much of a gentleman to force you to believe against what you truly wish to do.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Your assertion was that it is fine to allow people suffer in order to achieve some greater good. I replied that the catholic teaching says that the end cannot justify the means. In other words, it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some “good” will come out of it. Observe, it is the catholic church speaking, not me.

Right. Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. What I meant was that it is not wrong to create beings with free will because they will have the potential to make evil choices. It is better that we have free will and moral agency than for us to be in an amoral society void of suffering.

Alo, while I agree that ends do not justify the means, keep in mind that I am not (Roman) Catholic. Moreover, I was not suggesting ends justifies means. Free will/Moral agency is not an end.

Only if you step in before an irreversible, fatal error is committed. To allow that child to run off into the traffic, if you can prevent it, would be a highly criminal act, and rightfully so.

Right, if you are trying to preserve the child’s life, which we should. Remember the scale that God is on is cosmic. God is not trying to preserve life, at least not this life. God does want to preserve our soul, along with our free will and our moral agency. Everyone will die eventually, so saving the child’s life is just pushing back the inevitable. God is probably more concerned about things eternal.

Well, as another joke says: “The opposite of polygamy is monotony”. But, as long as it is a mutual decision, there is nothing wrong with it. As for chastity… well, another joke: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is: chastity”. It is a perversion, but as long as the person decides to live that lifestyle, it is no skin off my nose. But when I see the self-inflicted suffering it brings, then I sure feel sorry that she was brainwashed into such perversion. Modesty is such a broad term, they it is impossible to reflect on it. As contraception goes, it is one of the most despicable and ludicrous teaching of all. There is no good reason that people have to be “open” to procreation each and every time. It is simply lunacy. You left out masurbation… goes hand in hand with contraception. Also the teaching about homosexual relationships. Celibacy is also crazy, but as long as it is freely chosen… it is their own business.

None of this is substantiated, it is simply an assertion that stems from your opinion. It is also incoherent with your objective view of morality. You are subjectively saying that these are objective wrong/twisted subjective moral values. I don’t want to open this can of worms on this thread.
catholicleague.org/?cat=88
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0004.html
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

Hmmm… maybe my memory is not what it used to be, but try as I might, I cannot recall ever killing anyone, or even stealing, or committing perjury. I am sure I comitted a bunch of acts you would consider “sinful”, but that is not what I am talking about. So I feel rather confident that I am pretty safe in that regard.

And if that’s all it meant to be immoral, fine. This seems like a bare minimum sort of morality. By the by, you believe morality is subjective to individual and people group. In your view, though you do not believe in God, you would concede that if God existed He could have His on set of moral principles. This God being the one that created the cosmos and mankind. Though, wouldn’t God’s set of moral principles be the objective moral principles since the entire cosmos was created by one with such moral principles. So instead of aligning yourself with God’s view of morality, you hold to your own and condemn God on moral grounds because His moral principles are different. That doesn’t seem irrational to you? For if God is good, and virtue is an inherent part of God’s nature/essence, than God is the epitome of good. Now you can argue that God does not exist, but you have not adequately defend how, if God does exist, He is a moral monster because according to you’re view that cannot be done. Meanwhile, you say you are not guilty of being immoral because you reject the moral principles that would deem you immoral. If this is the view you want to hold that is fine, but it is not coherent, nor is it sensible.

Just to reiterate: I am only talking about acts of violence which are committed with the desire to physically hurt someone else - against their expressed or implicit wish or desire. (If some person wishes to emulate Jesus’ suffering on the cross, and asks to be crucified, I have no problem with it. This happens sometimes in the Philippines. If I would be involved, I might “forget” to take them off… allow them to get reeeeaaaaly close to Jesus. Yes, I know it would be pretty cruel of me.)

So if you found out that your daughter was routinely cutting herself, it would be moral of you to let her? It is just as immoral to let someone hurt their self as it is for you to injure someone else. Notice I said for you or a human being. This goes back to how metaphysics determines morality. Who you are, what you are, the position you’re in, etc. determines what would be ethical for you. God is not human. If he were to interfere it would not be the way we would interfere and it would have different consequences. This has been my argument from the beginning.