Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[PRmerger]

Which means that, in order to be converted, reason is not enough.

'zactly.

IOW in order to convert, apprehending something is not enough.

We apprehend with our minds and our hearts, belorg. The proverbial Catholic both/and. Very hard to refute.

Or are you a MIND-ONLY fundamentalist, too?

I wonder if you decided to marry you beloved based on your mind ONLY?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Hell consists of the fire of God’s LOVE, Ogreater. It’s just that this LOVE is odious to those in Hell.

If they would only turn around and face the LOVE…but they refuse to.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

It’s the perfect place as in a bar with unlimited access is a perfect place for an alcoholic. He can embrace his addiction and find “perfect” happiness.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I would, too.

I’m still waiting for the definition of “apprehend” that you need to offer that says, as you have stated, “is done by reason ALONE”.

It seems to me to be another of your faith-based assertions, with no empirical evidence to support it.

But if you can provide a reference from a dictionary that says it’s done by reason ALONE I will rescind my statement about your having a faith-ALONE belief.

 

[PRmerger]

By your definition of ‘faith’, atheists can be fathful, PR.

Sure.

FYI a hypothesis is a part of the reasoning process, so 'reason only ’ still applies to this.

As you stated, you start with faith. Remember? You said that right here.

And, then, of course, reason informs that faith.

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.

Sure.

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.

So you think that a 5 yr old, who is below the age of reason, cannot apprehend anything?

He cannot apprehend that his parents love him?

He cannot apprehend that when his tummy growls that means he is hungry?

He cannot apprehend that when he’s tired he needs to go to sleep?

I think common sense belies your assertion, belorg.

In fact, even a 5 year old can tell you: Mr. belorg, I think that you do not know what you are talking about. I certainly can apprehend things.

 

[belorg]

Sure.

So you think that a 5 yr old, who is below the age of reason, cannot apprehend anything?

Maybe it is some sort of Catholic dogma that a 5 yr old is below the age of reason, but science says otherwise. Of course a 5 yr old’s ability to reason isn’t full-grown, but, contrary to what your faith tells you, a 5 yr old has an ability to reason.

He cannot apprehend that his parents love him?

If he has no abiluty to reason, no he can’t.

He cannot apprehend that when his tummy growls that means he is hungry?

If that’s just a hunger-reflex, there is nothing to apprehend. If he truly apprehends this, that is done by reasoning.

He cannot apprehend that when he’s tired he needs to go to sleep?

Same answer.

I think common sense belies your assertion, belorg.

If you can come up with a real example of apprehending that does not involve reason, I’ll change my mind. After all, I am not dogmatic.

In fact, even a 5 year old can tell you: Mr. belorg, I think that you do not know what you are talking about. I certainly can apprehend things.

If a 5yr old can tell me that he thinks that, he is using reason, and that’s probably why he can apprehend things.
So, you have this 5 yr old sa, “My reason tells me that you do not know what you are taliking about, because I am only five year old and do not use reason” Pretty impressive analogy, PR.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

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?

Hell, on the contrary, can be imagined, among other images, as the place in which all that you dislike is present, and all that you like is absent. So hell cannot be really desired directly (apart psychiatric cases). Can be desired the absence of God, his non-existence, can be desired “all for me, nothing (or death, destruction, slavery etc.) for others” etc. Some of these desires put in practice are worthy of condemnation for the catholic faith. And Jesus in the Gospel, and also Paul and other apostles in the New Testament show the possibility of this condemnation to the ‘eternal fire’ and similar expressions and images.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Apprehending something means that reason is necessary, but it might not be sufficient. Reason ”presents the truth" to our imagination, our world view, but it takes an act of will to accept it or “grasp” it as the dictionary definition entails. This grasping step depends upon one’s world view, open mindedness, commitment to a certain mindset, among other things that could cause someone to deny a truth presented by reason.

I suggest that apprehending is a two step process (at least) but done very quickly by the mind so it seems to blend into one. The steps are: 1) arriving at a truth presented by rational or logical clarity; 2) acceptance or rejection of that truth by an act of will based upon a “disruptive” factor, i.e., its impact on other deeply held beliefs that are part of one’s world view.

A macro example might be the truth of global warming. Let’s assume (I understand this is debatable) that human activity is causing a massive disruption to the environment which will have deleterious effects to all life and this has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The truth of this conclusion does not mean every human is going to radically alter their lifestyle to mitigate the impact. The phenomenon is more like having to change the direction of a large ship, its done very slowly and, by some, not at all, because of the habits, character and routines of the individuals being called to change. There is a great reluctance to change and a great impetus to rationalize the status quo.

If you seriously believe truth merely requires demonstration to be accepted, watch a few commercials on TV. Clearly, appeals to intellectual vanity, ego, pleasure, sloth, social acceptance, fear, insecurities, etc. are far more effective in persuading buyers to “apprehend” or buy into product lines than truth. For, I dare say it, most people, when it comes to altering a chosen lifestyle, the denial of truth is an habitual trait, unless that truth can be jerry-rigged somehow to make it ride on top without upsetting the apple cart of one’s chosen lifestyle craftsmanship.

 

[belorg]

Hell, on the contrary, can be imagined, among other images, as the place in which all that you dislike is present, and all that you like is absent. So hell cannot be really desired directly (apart psychiatric cases). Can be desired the absence of God, his non-existence, can be desired “all for me, nothing (or death, destruction, slavery etc.) for others” etc. Some of these desires put in practice are worthy of condemnation for the catholic faith. And Jesus in the Gospel, and also Paul and other apostles in the New Testament show the possibility of this condemnation to the ‘eternal fire’ and similar expressions and images.

The claim was that by sending people to hell, so great is God’s love that He gives them what they want. Now, if you say that hell is not what those people want, then why would a loving God send anybody there?

 

[PRmerger]

The claim was that by sending people to hell, so great is God’s love that He gives them what they want. Now, if you say that hell is not what those people want, then why would a loving God send anybody there?

Because God does not force himself upon those who find him odious.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe it is some sort of Catholic dogma that a 5 yr old is below the age of reason, but science says otherwise. Of course a 5 yr old’s ability to reason isn’t full-grown, but, contrary to what your faith tells you, a 5 yr old has an ability to reason.

If he has no abiluty to reason, no he can’t.

Fair enough.

 

[PRmerger]

If you can come up with a real example of apprehending that does not involve reason, I’ll change my mind. After all, I am not dogmatic.

I apprehend, based on faith AND reason, the dogma of the Resurrection.

I apprehend, based on faith AND reason, that my husband will be faithful to me.

I apprehend, based on faith AND reason, that God loves me.

I apprehend, based on faith AND reason, that you are an honest person. That is, I assume that you are telling the truth until you prove otherwise.

However, I apprehend, based on empirical evidence ALONE, that you were poorly catechized and did not know the faith that you left.

And, I apprehend, based on my intuition, that you have never read* Fides et Ratio.*

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

If that’s just a hunger-reflex, there is nothing to apprehend. If he truly apprehends this, that is done by reasoning.
…]
If you can come up with a real example of apprehending that does not involve reason, I’ll change my mind. After all, I am not dogmatic.

It seems to me the point is the same: if one tightly ties to apprehend to reason (in this way previously excluding any other dictionary meaning of to apprehend), he says, with a circular argument: apprehend = reason, so everything I apprehend is by reason, not because of the facts, but because of the definition I give to “to apprehend”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

In order to have faith in God (trusting fidelity to God) a person must “know” God in the sense of being intimate with the persons of God. In reality, this is not a sequential process as in first knowing God, then having faith in him. It is more a dynamic incremental process; the more you get to know God, the more you have faith in him, which leads to greater knowledge and greater faith. It is a building of trust and knowledge over the course of the relationship.

Reason might get you to a point where you find it credible that God exists, but actually coming to “know” God, in this Biblical sense, is a different matter.

I have heard the case made that the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve came to experience in the garden was not a rational knowledge, but an experiential one. This is quite consistent with them rationally understanding the difference between good and evil before the fall, but becoming intimate with evil, i.e., experiencing the consequences of willful assent to it, after.

This would entail that reason is not enough to be converted back to a pre-Edenal state of innocence because a detachment from evil and from deception (untruth) is necessary. Merely recognizing the difference is not enough to bring about conversion which requires an act of separating oneself from evil and deception, not merely mentally recognizing the difference. The good must be chosen not merely recognized.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

The claim was that by sending people to hell, so great is God’s love that He gives them what they want. Now, if you say that hell is not what those people want, then why would a loving God send anybody there?

Also because of what you are saying, I don’t like the expression: “Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!”.
I said, a lot of posts ago, that condemnation is essentially a self-condemnation;
I precisely said:
"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.” #223.

The self-condemnation is caused by refusing God and his love in doing some very serious actions against men and God; and never, until death, even thinking to repent of that really serious actions against men and God.

 

[belorg]

Apprehending something means that reason is necessary, but it might not be sufficient. Reason ”presents the truth" to our imagination, our world view, but it takes an act of will to accept it or “grasp” it as the dictionary definition entails. This grasping step depends upon one’s world view, open mindedness, commitment to a certain mindset, among other things that could cause someone to deny a truth presented by reason.

But if that is true, our mindset puts a limit to our reasoning. So, normally, reasoning is sufficient unless it is inhibited by some other feature of our mind.

I suggest that apprehending is a two step process (at least) but done very quickly by the mind so it seems to blend into one. The steps are: 1) arriving at a truth presented by rational or logical clarity; 2) acceptance or rejection of that truth by an act of will based upon a “disruptive” factor, i.e., its impact on other deeply held beliefs that are part of one’s world view.

So, without this disruptive factor, reason is sufficient. So, we should in fcat, get rid of all disruptive factors, at least as many as possible.

A macro example might be the truth of global warming. Let’s assume (I understand this is debatable) that human activity is causing a massive disruption to the environment which will have deleterious effects to all life and this has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The truth of this conclusion does not mean every human is going to radically alter their lifestyle to mitigate the impact. The phenomenon is more like having to change the direction of a large ship, its done very slowly and, by some, not at all, because of the habits, character and routines of the individuals being called to change. There is a great reluctance to change and a great impetus to rationalize the status quo.

If you seriously believe truth merely requires demonstration to be accepted, watch a few commercials on TV. Clearly, appeals to intellectual vanity, ego, pleasure, sloth, social acceptance, fear, insecurities, etc. are far more effective in persuading buyers to “apprehend” or buy into product lines than truth. For, I dare say it, most people, when it comes to altering a chosen lifestyle, the denial of truth is an habitual trait, unless that truth can be jerry-rigged somehow to make it ride on top without upsetting the apple cart of one’s chosen lifestyle craftsmanship.

Wait a minute. Who says that truth merely requires demonstration to be accepted? Nothing in what I said entails this, Peter.

 

[belorg]

It seems to me the point is the same: if one tightly ties to apprehend to reason (in this way previously excluding any other dictionary meaning of to apprehend), he says, with a circular argument: apprehend = reason, so everything I apprehend is by reason, not because of the facts, but because of the definition I give to “to apprehend”.

That’s triue. But ‘understand’ is the most common synonym of ‘apprehend’. So maybe it’s circular, but that is, as you say ,due to the definition which entails reason.

 

[belorg]

In order to have faith in God (trusting fidelity to God) a person must “know” God in the sense of being intimate with the persons of God. In reality, this is not a sequential process as in first knowing God, then having faith in him. It is more a dynamic incremental process; the more you get to know God, the more you have faith in him, which leads to greater knowledge and greater faith. It is a building of trust and knowledge over the course of the relationship.

Reason might get you to a point where you find it credible that God exists, but actually coming to “know” God, in this Biblical sense, is a different matter.

I have heard the case made that the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve came to experience in the garden was not a rational knowledge, but an experiential one. This is quite consistent with them rationally understanding the difference between good and evil before the fall, but becoming intimate with evil, i.e., experiencing the consequences of willful assent to it, after.

This would entail that reason is not enough to be converted back to a pre-Edenal state of innocence because a detachment from evil and from deception (untruth) is necessary. Merely recognizing the difference is not enough to bring about conversion which requires an act of separating oneself from evil and deception, not merely mentally recognizing the difference. The good must be chosen not merely recognized.

The knowledge of good and evil should have been enough for Adam and Eve to not betray God. alas, they did not have that knowledge before they ate the fruit. So, before they ate the fruit, they could not have knwon it was evil to eat the fruit. Therefore, eating the fruit was not a sin and the ‘fall’ cannot have happened.

But enough of this, I think I have made my point clear enough.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But if that is true, our mindset puts a limit to our reasoning. So, normally, reasoning is sufficient unless it is inhibited by some other feature of our mind.

So, without this disruptive factor, reason is sufficient. So, we should in fcat, get rid of all disruptive factors, at least as many as possible.

Minimally, this would involve an intense and absolute commitment to truth with an attendant willingness to reflect on and change one’s current belief set.

Keep in mind that the Christian claim is not that truth is merely a set of principles or conceptions about the world, but that Truth is essentially the Being and Persons of God. In this sense, a rational acceptance of Christianity is radically different than merely seeing truth as correspondence with reality. If Reality is, at ground, a living Being, then knowledge of Truth is of a fundamentally different sort than merely “the way things are perceived to be.”

Wait a minute. Who says that truth merely requires demonstration to be accepted? Nothing in what I said entails this, Peter.

My assumption was that by saying reason alone is necessary to apprehend truth you were espousing a belief that “rational” beings by nature only require demonstration by reason to accept truth. This is not what you were claiming?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The knowledge of good and evil should have been enough for Adam and Eve to not betray God. alas, they did not have that knowledge before they ate the fruit. So, before they ate the fruit, they could not have knwon it was evil to eat the fruit. Therefore, eating the fruit was not a sin and the ‘fall’ cannot have happened.

But enough of this, I think I have made my point clear enough.

You haven’t made your point because you simply assume that reason is the only necessary and sufficient factor to move a will to act. You haven’t demonstrated this at all.