Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[pig]

That would all depend on what a ragument actually is.

Is a ragument by nature tongue-in-cheek or serious?

may be related to ragweek… for us it meant having to drink a lot of beer but nobody told us it was for a good cause…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, because as I said, ‘Apprehend’ is by definition done by reason

Please provide your references for this.

I want to see the definition include the words “reason alone” in it. (I’ll also accept “reason only.” Because I’m just generous like that. )

:coffeeread:

Oh, and just for fun, I googled the phrase “apprehend by faith” and over 12,200 entries came up.

google.com/search?q=%22apprehend+by+faith%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

Clearly, the thinking world seems to believe that we can apprehend by faith.

And without your evidence to back you up, you are proclaiming a faith-inspired doctrine.

That’s fine. But it’s just a bit amusing to see ia faith-inspired doctrine proclaimed so dogmatically by an atheist.

 

[Portofino]

So if we say, “Reason is all we have to apprehend the Truth” (and, remember, reason cannot prove this. That is a faith-based assertion.) we are using only a (generously) 5 yr old ability to comprehend the Numinous.

If reason is a tool, but not the only tool, then on what grounds can you effectively disagree with a faith different than your own? All you can do is seek to give rational arguments against their faith (but reason is not the only tool for knowledge, so your rational arguments alone may not be sufficient) or restate your own faith, upon which they will restate theirs.

So you can argue against the faith of a Mormon. But perhaps that Mormon’s faith has given him knowledge that reason alone cannot comprehend. And, if one does not have the faith of a Mormon, it is possible that one will never know what a Mormon knows, or has been given to understand. For reason is not the only tool of knowledge.

 

[PRmerger]

If reason is a tool, but not the only tool, then on what grounds can you effectively disagree with a faith different than your own? All you can do is seek to give rational arguments against their faith (but reason is not the only tool for knowledge, so your rational arguments alone may not be sufficient) or restate your own faith, upon which they will restate theirs.

So you can argue against the faith of a Mormon. But perhaps that Mormon’s faith has given him knowledge that reason alone cannot comprehend. And, if one does not have the faith of a Mormon, it is possible that one will never know what a Mormon knows, or has been given to understand. For reason is not the only tool of knowledge.

Indeed. No on ever converted another through argument. (And here I use the classical definition of argument, for folks unfamiliar with the term. I do not mean this: )

http://www.pacificsandiego.com/pacific-blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/argument-arguing-argue.jpeg

As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “Some people scorn apologetic reasoning [because] they decide with their hearts much more than with their heads whether to believe or not. The heart is our center, not the head. But apologetics gets at the heart through the head. The head is important precisely because it is a gate to the heart.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

If reason is a tool, but not the only tool, then on what grounds can you effectively disagree with a faith different than your own? All you can do is seek to give rational arguments against their faith (but reason is not the only tool for knowledge, so your rational arguments alone may not be sufficient) or restate your own faith, upon which they will restate theirs.

So you can argue against the faith of a Mormon. But perhaps that Mormon’s faith has given him knowledge that reason alone cannot comprehend. And, if one does not have the faith of a Mormon, it is possible that one will never know what a Mormon knows, or has been given to understand. For reason is not the only tool of knowledge.

Reason has to begin with premises and then move to conclusions. As such it can only appeal to premises that are acceptable to both parties or axiomatic principles that are indisputable.

“From nothing, nothing comes,” is as close to an axiom of reality as anything else I can think of. Mormon theology is weak in terms of explaining the cosmos since it simply assumes a physical universe and therefore it’s gods must also be physical by nature. Joseph Smith did not have a strong science background.

On the other hand, compare Jewish Old Testament creation ex nihilo, written 3000+ years ago, which essentially and correctly depicted Big Bang cosmology, albeit poetically. Not bad for a primitive band of desert wanders. Reason alone could not have made such an accurate cosmology possible, though intuition inspired by faith, in alignment with reason, could.

 

[Portofino]

Reason has to begin with premises and then move to conclusions. As such it can only appeal to premises that are acceptable to both parties or axiomatic principles that are indisputable.

“From nothing, nothing comes,” is as close to an axiom of reality as anything else I can think of. Mormon theology is weak in terms of explaining the cosmos since it simply assumes a physical universe and therefore it’s gods must also be physical by nature. Joseph Smith did not have a strong science background.

On the other hand, compare Jewish Old Testament creation ex nihilo, written 3000+ years ago, which essentially and correctly depicted Big Bang cosmology, albeit poetically. Not bad for a primitive band of desert wanders. Reason alone could not have made such an accurate cosmology possible, though intuition inspired by faith, in alignment with reason, could.

Stimulating thoughts One thing that interests me about the Big Bang theory is that it also seems to lend support to the intuition of monism (“all things are one”). This concept of unity appears to be not merely an intuition, but almost a requirement of reason, in the sense that we intuitively designate the “universe” (all of existence) as a singular term. Moving from what is particular to what is general – through a reasoning mind that derives what is abstract and universal from what is concrete and particular – would seem to flow from this innate tendency or desire to connect and to discern unity, and seems corroborated by the fact that, the higher our vantage point in terms of physical altitude, the more unity and interconnectedness we see (from the sky, we see the overall patterns of a town or a landscape, and the interrelatedness of all its parts; from space, we see the earth itself as singular and as a unity). It is altitude that gives us the more complete or accurate picture of the whole. Reason also intuits (as mentioned) that everything that exists (plural) must be part of something that ultimately can be conceived of as a unity, as “existence” (singular). And, of course, it intuits that all that exists must be made of the same material or stuff (matter), which was the intuition of those pre-Socratics who tried to find the one element out of which the universe was made. Even the materialist waxes somewhat mystical in describing the stuff of existence as “matter” (etymologically, from mater – “origin, source, mother”). It seems to stand to reason that existence is ultimately one and that, beyond one planet, one solar system, and one galaxy of which we are a part, there is one universe of which *all *is a part.

This notion of order from chaos in the creation of the world is another common human intuition – found not only in Genesis, but in Hesiod’s “Theogony” or Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.” The ordering element in the universe is believed to be that which is divine (Greek kosmos, “order, good order, orderly arrangement”).

Also, the verse “let there be light”, from Genesis, is likewise corroborated by modern science – via Einstein, for example (or, perhaps, via the Impressionists ).

I personally hesitate to call this evidence of revelation – no more than I would consider the prescience of Greek atomism to be evidence of revelation (though it could be) – but I would, at the very least, describe it as intuition (that is, neither deductive reasoning, *nor *inductive reasoning, nor mere imagination).

These thoughts about creation myths being corroborated by science also remind me of Joseph Campbell’s work in comparative mythology… Or, for that matter, of the intuitions --from a Judeo-Christian perspective – that the Greek philosophers had regarding monotheism (from the pre-Socratics, to Plato, to the Stoics). The Greek philosophers had practically inferred monotheism, through a kind of rational intuition (or inferred monism, at least).

 

[PRmerger]

Because of the definition of apprehend, PR.
There is nothing in the definition of Newark that says you can only get there by train.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/29811419866/when-i-heard-rihanna-tell-oprah-that-she-was-more

 

[EuryTheWithheld]

1. 
   *]Would you rather be a human being, who is able to make intellectual choices guided by reason, or an animal which is not?
   *]If you would rather be an animal, why?
   *]If you would rather be a human, why?
   *]In either case…congratulations! You just made an intellectual choice, which you would not be able to do as an animal.
   
   For the sake of this argument, I’ll assume that most of us are happy being humans and wouldn’t choose to give up our intelligence and freedom of choice. This is one of the greatest gifts (although not the greatest of all) that God has given us - to be created in His image as a rational, thinking being.
   
   God loves us enough to grant us complete control over our lives, giving us the final say on every decision we make. God does not force us to do anything, because to love us completely demands that level of respect. He gives us our lives and sustains them continuously through the act of loving us…even as we commit sins and even if we decide that we don’t love Him in return. If God withdrew that love from us, even for an instant, we would literally drop dead. What an incredible act of humility and love on God’s part to show us such patience and to keep us alive while we insult Him constantly and repeatedly!
   
   So how does this show that Hell exists as a natural consequence of God’s love for us? Simply because God gave you and I the freedom to do anything, even to run away from Him and hide forever. To question the doctrine of an eternal Hell, separated from God’s presence, is to argue that God is trying to trick us when He claims that we have free will. To say that God should bring us to Heaven, even when we knowingly and willingly sin, is to say that God should pretend to offer us a completely free choice but then ignore our ultimate decision and force His eternal presence on us against our will.
   
   In other words, Hell is something God allows us to choose freely - even though He hopes that none of us will make that choice - because He loves us infinitely.
   
   

1. 
   It could also be said that God gives us what we want. If we don’t want to be with him, why would we reject the opportunity to be with others who do not want to bow before God. Hence, hell is perfect for those who do not want anything to do with God.
   
   Of course it sounds bad. But that’s reality for you. The prize of sin becomes the very punishment its self.

 

[belorg]

Perhaps you left the Church before Pope John Paul II wrote the magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)?

For that could be the ONLY (ha!) reason that could explain your dismal knowledge of what our popes have proclaimed regarding faith and reason.

Incidentally, you also seem to be confusing The Catholic Faith with our current topic, which is faith.

The current topic is whether hell exists because God loves us. What we are discussing now is whether apprehending is done by reason only, wihout faith.
And I did leave the Church before Fides et Ratio, but that does not mean I do not know what Fides et Ratio proclaims.

 

[belorg]

Heh. You do realize what you’ve just done, right, belorg? You’ve just set yourself up.

For what is a hypothesis but a statement of faith that needs testing?

So you start with faith and then reason to the Truth.

No, I start with a hypothesis. If you think that is faith, you simply do not knwo what you are talking about.
If it is also true that proclamations of (Catholic) faith are to regarded as hypotheses, then I think we are in agreement. We start from ‘faith’ and test it by reason and it is only after we have tested it that we apprehend it. So <e apprehend an hypothesis by reason.

 

[belorg]

Indeed. No on ever converted another through argument.
As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “Some people scorn apologetic reasoning [because] they decide with their hearts much more than with their heads whether to believe or not. The heart is our center, not the head. But apologetics gets at the heart through the head. The head is important precisely because it is a gate to the heart.”

Which means that, in order to be converted, reason is not enough. IOW in order to convert, apprehending something is not enough.

 

[Ogreater]

Hell: God is Good
Free Will

 God doesn't force Himself on any of us.  He gives us free will to decide whether we want to love Him or not.  He wants nothing more than to see us all around the wedding feast table in Heaven with Him.  Yet if we don't show that we love God here on earth, why would we want to be with Him forever?  It's similar to a young woman not wanting to marry a guy who she never went out with, and never had a conversation with.

**
But if God is so good…**

So if God loves us so much, and wants to see us all in Heaven, why does Hell exist?  How could He send His own children to Hell?  The answer is this:  He doesn't.  He does not send his children to Hell, in fact, we send ourselves there.  Our life shows separation from God's love, and our choices choose our final destination.

Hell: Vacancy

 God would love to see Hell empty.  When original sin entered the world, God sent the promise of a Savior, His own Son, to come to earth and open the gates of Heaven for us.    Because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, there is not one sin that cannot be forgiven by God.  Our debt is forgiven by the Lamb's perfect sacrifice - and when we accept this, we can enter into God's mystical body here on earth, and eventually in Heaven.

**
The Beauty of the Cross**

 The cross is the sign that God loves us!  He wants us to be with Him, and He has given us all the tools to get there.  St. Rose of Lima said, "Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder to Heaven."

(from my blog post on 9/6/12)

God bless you all,

Chloe M.

 

[belorg]

Please provide your references for this.

I want to see the definition include the words “reason alone” in it. (I’ll also accept “reason only.” Because I’m just generous like that. )

:coffeeread:

Oh, and just for fun, I googled the phrase “apprehend by faith” and over 12,200 entries came up.

google.com/search?q=%22apprehend+by+faith%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
Clearly, the thinking world seems to believe that we can apprehend by faith.

I did not investigate all 12,200 entries but the first ten pages are exclusively from Christian sources, So, I would still like to know what the rest of the thinking world thinks about that.

And without your evidence to back you up, you are proclaiming a faith-inspired doctrine.

That’s fine. But it’s just a bit amusing to see i faith-inspired doctrine proclaimed so dogmatically by an atheist.

By your definition of ‘faith’, atheists can be fathful, PR.
And I do not proclaim anything dogmatic, unless you also regard ‘red is a colour’ as a dogmatic statement.
FYI a hypothesis is a part of the reasoning process, so 'reason only ’ still applies to this.
So, unless you define apprehend in a very vague sense in which it can mean something like ‘having some sort of experience of something’, the usual definition of to apprehend is to understand. And understanding is done by reason only, not because of some dogma , but because that happens to be the definition of ‘understand’ in this context.

 

[Ogreater]

When I googled the question “Do Catholics believe in hell?” I came across a lengthy section quoting many Christian writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries. All of them described the terrors of hell in such terrible terms. The consensus seemed to be that the damned would be given resurrected bodies of such nature that they would feel the fire, that the fire would consume that body, and that they would be clothed with another body to feel the flames ad infinitum. And if hell is mankind’s default destination, then most people, regardless of whether their lives on earth were hellish enough, would face an eternity in hell. I just cannot at present believe in “God is Love” as St John said if God created the universe in this way, knowing that souls would go to hell. No loving earthly father wouls burn his child with a cigarette for an instant let alone send him into a furnace.
Why make God into an ogre?

 

[belorg]

Reason has to begin with premises and then move to conclusions. As such it can only appeal to premises that are acceptable to both parties or axiomatic principles that are indisputable.

Deciding whether premises are acceptable take reason, Peter, just as deciding which axiomatic principle is indisputable.

“From nothing, nothing comes,” is as close to an axiom of reality as anything else I can think of. Mormon theology is weak in terms of explaining the cosmos since it simply assumes a physical universe and therefore it’s gods must also be physical by nature. Joseph Smith did not have a strong science background.

He probably didn’t. And that is what you can conclude by reason.

On the other hand, compare Jewish Old Testament creation ex nihilo, written 3000+ years ago, which essentially and correctly depicted Big Bang cosmology, albeit poetically. Not bad for a primitive band of desert wanders. Reason alone could not have made such an accurate cosmology possible, though intuition inspired by faith, in alignment with reason, could.

Of course reason alone could have made such a cosmology possible. It does not even take too much reason to come up with a cosmology which is not accurate at all, unless viewed with the biased eyes of Christians.And ven if it were ‘accurate’. Why couldn’t reason alone have made it possible? Those ‘desert wanders’ knew how to read and write, and had access to various sources of knowledge from the surrounding areas.

 

[belorg]

It could also be said that God gives us what we want. If we don’t want to be with him, why would we reject the opportunity to be with others who do not want to bow before God. Hence, hell is perfect for those who do not want anything to do with God.

Of course it sounds bad. But that’s reality for you. The prize of sin becomes the very punishment its self.

If Hell is what we want, there is nothing to be afraid of. Are you afraid to get what you want?
You say that Hell is a perfect place for me, and I suppose heaven is a perfect place for you. So, everybody goes to a perfect place. Now, what is the big deal about repenting etc? Why would I repent if I’ll go to a perfect place anyway?

 

[belorg]

When I googled the question “Do Catholics believe in hell?” I came across a lengthy section quoting many Christian writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries. All of them described the terrors of hell in such terrible terms. The consensus seemed to be that the damned would be given resurrected bodies of such nature that they would feel the fire, that the fire would consume that body, and that they would be clothed with another body to feel the flames ad infinitum. And if hell is mankind’s default destination, then most people, regardless of whether their lives on earth were hellish enough, would face an eternity in hell. I just cannot at present believe in “God is Love” as St John said if God created the universe in this way, knowing that souls would go to hell. No loving earthly father wouls burn his child with a cigarette for an instant let alone send him into a furnace.
Why make God into an ogre?

Through reason, the Catholic faith has evolved, and most prominent Catholic theologians do not believe in this sort of hell anymore, because it makes no sense and it is, as you correctly observe, contrary to God’s perfect Love.

 

[pig]

Stimulating thoughts One thing that interests me about the Big Bang theory is that it also seems to lend support to the intuition of monism (“all things are one”). This concept of unity appears to be not merely an intuition, but almost a requirement of reason, in the sense that we intuitively designate the “universe” (all of existence) as a singular term. Moving from what is particular to what is general – through a reasoning mind that derives what is abstract and universal from what is concrete and particular – would seem to flow from this innate tendency or desire to connect and to discern unity, and seems corroborated by the fact that, the higher our vantage point in terms of physical altitude, the more unity and interconnectedness we see (from the sky, we see the overall patterns of a town or a landscape, and the interrelatedness of all its parts; from space, we see the earth itself as singular and as a unity). It is altitude that gives us the more complete or accurate picture of the whole. Reason also intuits (as mentioned) that everything that exists (plural) must be part of something that ultimately can be conceived of as a unity, as “existence” (singular). And, of course, it intuits that all that exists must be made of the same material or stuff (matter), which was the intuition of those pre-Socratics who tried to find the one element out of which the universe was made. Even the materialist waxes somewhat mystical in describing the stuff of existence as “matter” (etymologically, from mater – “origin, source, mother”). It seems to stand to reason that existence is ultimately one and that, beyond one planet, one solar system, and one galaxy of which we are a part, there is one universe of which *all *is a part.

This notion of order from chaos in the creation of the world is another common human intuition – found not only in Genesis, but in Hesiod’s “Theogony” or Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.” The ordering element in the universe is believed to be that which is divine (Greek kosmos, “order, good order, orderly arrangement”).

Also, the verse “let there be light”, from Genesis, is likewise corroborated by modern science – via Einstein, for example (or, perhaps, via the Impressionists ).

I personally hesitate to call this evidence of revelation – no more than I would consider the prescience of Greek atomism to be evidence of revelation (though it could be) – but I would, at the very least, describe it as intuition (that is, neither deductive reasoning, *nor *inductive reasoning, nor mere imagination).

These thoughts about creation myths being corroborated by science also remind me of Joseph Campbell’s work in comparative mythology… Or, for that matter, of the intuitions --from a Judeo-Christian perspective – that the Greek philosophers had regarding monotheism (from the pre-Socratics, to Plato, to the Stoics). The Greek philosophers had practically inferred monotheism, through a kind of rational intuition (or inferred monism, at least).

[3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
[14] And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, …

From what I understand, the universe, for the first 2,500 years of its existence was just light, - photons. From 2,500 years until 300,000 years later matter started to form. And from 300,000 years onwards the first stars began to form.

In any case the sequence according to physics and Revelation is that first light is created, then matter, then stars.

If I was going to imagine a sequence, having no information (neither modern scientific nor Revelation), I think I would be sure to make the lights first and have them create the light and not have light created before the lights were created.

But however 'tis a small matter.

 

[PRmerger]

The current topic is whether hell exists because God loves us. What we are discussing now is whether apprehending is done by reason only, wihout faith.
And I did leave the Church before Fides et Ratio, but that does not mean I do not know what Fides et Ratio proclaims.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/32838114425/when-my-ex-pretends-like-he-doesnt-miss-me

 

[PRmerger]

If it is also true that proclamations of (Catholic) faith are to regarded as hypotheses, then I think we are in agreement. **We start from ‘faith’ **and test it by reason and it is only after we have tested it that we apprehend it. So <e apprehend an hypothesis by reason.

Indeed! This is very Catholic of you to say!

That’s why I said we can, indeed, start from faith!!! You said it, too!

:extrahappy::dancing::clapping::bounce::bounce::bounce: