Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[belorg]

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

You may have heard this as a faith-proclamation, but you apprehend it by reason, PR.

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

You hope this based on faith and but apprehend this based on reason.

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

You hope this based on faith, and you apprehend it based on reason.

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.

That’s an assumption, assuming something is not the same as apprehading.

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

That would be a true example of apprehending if it were true. But it isn’t.
It is a faith-based assertion.

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

Wrong again. I have read it. So, there seems to be something wrong with your apprehending, which is quite normal as nobody is omniscient.

 

[belorg]

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?

No, that’s not what I was claiming. We have to do the reasoning for ourselves. If demonstration were enough to accept truth, that would be a matter of faith, not reason.

 

[belorg]

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

Why would anybody find Him odous?

 

[belorg]

[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.

You forget
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

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 earth first and then create light and not have light created before the earth was created. I would also create water before I created light.

The person who wrote this must have had a revelation before he could write this, because since then science has learned us that the heaven and earth were already around long before the Big Bang, and that even water was already around.

But however 'tis a small matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, that’s not what I was claiming. We have to do the reasoning for ourselves. If demonstration were enough to accept truth, that would be a matter of faith, not reason.

A very subtle distinction, but still problematic because even if we do the reasoning ourselves that does not mean we must accept the results of that reasoning, Our own reasoning does not “compel” assent by will, there is always the possibility of denial and rationalization if a rational conclusion disturbs an ingrained mindset as I brought up in post #663.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You forget
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

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 earth first and then create light and not have light created before the earth was created. I would also create water before I created light.

The person who wrote this must have had a revelation before he could write this, because since then science has learned us that the heaven and earth were already around long before the Big Bang, and that even water was already around.

But however 'tis a small matter.

Even if this bold-faced point was intended to be sarcastic, that quality is lost in the fact that it doesn’t make any sense. Are you on some medication that cautions against undertaking subtle philosophical distinctions when under its influence?

 

[pig]

You forget
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

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 earth first and then create light and not have light created before the earth was created. I would also create water before I created light.

The person who wrote this must have had a revelation before he could write this, because since then science has learned us that the heaven and earth were already around long before the Big Bang, and that even water was already around.

But however 'tis a small matter.

Don’t cast your pearls before swine, - please.

The first line, ‘In the Beginning…’ , introduces the story and what will happen in it. In line two the writer plainly told you that what we understand as the earth was formless and void.
The earth 2,500 years after the big bang was indeed formless and void, so much so in fact, that it existed as free, formless, void, hydrogen, helium & deuterium, and more elements were added as time went on. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is found in water, oceans etc. It is concentrated from sea-water and is known as heavy-water.
Deuterium is destroyed by stars and could only be produced at the beginning of the big bang .
So yes indeed the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters also in the Beginning, or a component of heavy-water, at any rate.

 

[belorg]

Even if this bold-faced point was intended to be sarcastic, that quality is lost in the fact that it doesn’t make any sense. Are you on some medication that cautions against undertaking subtle philosophical distinctions when under its influence?

Of course it doesn’t make any sense. That’s why it is sarcastic.

 

[belorg]

Don’t cast your pearls before swine, - please.

The first line, ‘In the Beginning…’ , introduces the story and what will happen in it. In line two the writer plainly told you that what we understand as the earth was formless and void.
The earth 2,500 years after the big bang was indeed formless and void, so much so in fact, that it existed as free, formless, void, hydrogen, helium & deuterium, and more elements were added as time went on. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is found in water, oceans etc. It is concentrated from sea-water and is known as heavy-water.
Deuterium is destroyed by stars and could only be produced at the beginning of the big bang .
So yes indeed the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters also in the Beginning, or a component of heavy-water, at any rate.

But that was still before, according to the story, there was light. But, “From what you understand, the universe, for the first 2,500 years of its existence ( AKA “in the beginning”) was just light, - photons.” So, no hydrogen, helium and deuterium, according to your own understanding. So, before there were photons (which you call light) there was no deuterium, and before there was light, God’s spirit could not have hovered over the deuterium waters.
Let’s be serious, pig, Genesis is a nice creation myth with a few vague resemblances to what we’ve learned since then, and also quite a few inconsistencies. It was probably not written by ignorant desert wanderers but by people who had the capability of reasoning and therefore got some of the things correct, and others incorrect, as would be expected from people who did not have the technology we have at our disposal. Claiming that this story is a strong indication of revelation is a severe case of wishful thinking.

 

[belorg]

A very subtle distinction, but still problematic because even if we do the reasoning ourselves that does not mean we must accept the results of that reasoning, Our own reasoning does not “compel” assent by will, there is always the possibility of denial and rationalization if a rational conclusion disturbs an ingrained mindset as I brought up in post #663.

Of course it is not so that we must accept the results of that reasoning. That is precisely what distinguishes reason from faith (in the dogmatic sense). But if we have done all possible reasoning, it is to be expected that we accept the results until we have reasons to reject it.
I do not think ‘will’ can be distiguished from 'reason ’ either, BTW. But that open another can of worms.

 

[pig]

But that was still before, according to the story, there was light. But, “From what you understand, the universe, for the first 2,500 years of its existence ( AKA “in the beginning”) was just light, - photons.” So, no hydrogen, helium and deuterium, according to your own understanding. So, before there were photons (which you call light) there was no deuterium, and before there was light, God’s spirit could not have hovered over the deuterium waters.
Let’s be serious, pig, Genesis is a nice creation myth with a few vague resemblances to what we’ve learned since then, and also quite a few inconsistencies. It was probably not written by ignorant desert wanderers but by people who had the capability of reasoning and therefore got some of the things correct, and others incorrect, as would be expected from people who did not have the technology we have at our disposal. Claiming that this story is a strong indication of revelation is a severe case of wishful thinking.

Not so at all. Photons dominated the universe during this period. But hydrogen, helium, deuterium and carbon were also created. Deuterium could only be created during the big bang within the first twenty minutes. After that the universe had cooled too much to create any more deuterium.
So yes, In the Beginning there was light dominating but also hydrogen etc., and Gods Spirit could indeed hover over the deuterium waters created within the first twenty minutes.
Of course, the light continued to dominate for a very long time…

…then there were the lights in the sky.
Those people were smart to guess light was created long before the lights were created.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Sorry for the delay

I am sure this is your opinion, but I do not share it. By the way, it is a common christian opinion that in heaven we shall not be able to commit evil acts, and as such we shall not have any “significant free will”, and it will be void of suffering. Also that such an existence will be the pinnacle of existence, undiluted eternal happiness… and now you prefer the free will and the suffering? Very strange, indeed!

This is quite the mystery isn’t it. Yet, the age to come will be one which we have chosen. If Christianity is true, it seems silly that anyone would struggle vehemently to take part in the age to come in a world surrounded by opposition, only to be in the age to come where such opposition is relieved, only to choose apostasy. If a person has chosen God during the opposition, than the person has chosen to love God. Since the love has already been chosen and established and the person already proven their loyalty, there would be no reason why a person would not choose God in the next life. Satan was in heaven. Fallen angels fell from grace. They were in heaven and chose against God. I understand your objection, but we can see that the Christian position is not a incoherent one. I do not know the mind of God, my goal here is to simply show how the faith is consistent, reasonable, and rational.

No sign of that either. If we are about to make a fatal decision, which would endanger our “salvation”, God does NOT reach down, and warn us: “don’t do it, because…”. And no, such a warning would not put our “free will” into jeopardy at all. Besides, why would God NOT care about this “temporary” existence? Is he too busy doing something else? A really loving person with unlimited resources would not limit hos love and caring.

If I tell you, by the power of the Holy Spirit “Jesus, who is God made flesh, came into the world to suffer with you and for you, dying that you may have life and life more abundant, to be forgiven of your sins and find wholeness of being, and to find meaning in your life and your suffering; believe on him and be saved” God has literally made a way for you to be saved. It is now your responsibility to examine it, to be open to it and receive it.

I understand and empathize with your objection to suffering. As I have said before though, you have not shown that God’s allowing suffering is evil. For it might be that God allowing the suffering that He allows is actually for good. Your concern is, if God exists, He should not allow suffering. But you do not know that for sure. You are unable to say that God has no reason for suffering. However, I can argue that God is good. For our very sense of goodness comes from G. Why would an evil good make a people who strive for good and virtue? Yes there is suffering, but it could certainly be worse. There is also beauty, love, joy, and pleasure. At worst you could say God is morally neutral or dualistic, but to say He is evil is contrary to evidence. Since we cannot show that the suffering we see certainly means God is evil, and because God has shown that He desires for US to be good, I think we have good reasons to give God the benefit of the doubt through faith. You may disagree, but if you do its because you want to, not because of the evidence, since it is not logically contradictory or conclusive.

No, why would it?

Hold it. I never accepted that. On the very contrary, if God would be benevolent, then he would care about the small details in this life, too. God’s assumed benevolence is “invisible”. It is perfectly sensible and rational to reject the concept of God’s benevolence - precisely because there is no sign of it.

It would because you are telling the being that created you and all other contingent things that His morality, which is logically the first morality and the morality that gives rise to our morality. For without an essence and a telos, morality is illusory. With god, it is actually grounded in the things necessary for their existence. You can make up your own morality, which is in fact a false, constructed morality, but it seems irrational to say that your morality is the right morality. Since you did not create your essence or designate your telos, you can’t really define these things for yourself. You do not even believe in these things. If God exists, He would have made you with your nature and your end in mind. The watchmaker determines the function of a watch, the watch does not determine its own function.

Do you reject God’s benevolence from reason or from emotion. If it is from emotion I empathize with you and I will pray for you. We all suffer and, in some sense, I grieve with you. In some sense, so has Christ who suffered greatly. If Jesus is God, God has suffered as well in a mysterious way.

If it is from reason, you have not shown that the suffering we see is an evil on God’s part. For though it would transcend human knowledge, we can at least show that God allowing suffering does not necessarily make God evil or not omnibenevolent if He has good reason for it. For punishment is suffering, but just punishment is good. As with the shot analogy, suffering may not be evil if for a greater good. It is only unnecessary suffering, or taking joy in suffering itself, which is evil. You have not, and cannot, show that this is the case. Yet, there would be no reason why would be able to experience good if God was not good to some extent. Since God admonishes us to suffer with people, and to help them through their suffering an help relieve them, we see that God is not a fan of suffering either–in and of itself. He is a fan of what suffering can bring about.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

It is coherent and sensible. You said that God does not care about this existence. So on what grounds would you say that he is “good”?

1. I do not see why God’s goodness would depend on that.
2. I said He was more concerned about existence eternal more than existence temporal. I did not say, nor did I mean to say, that God does not care about this existence. If God were to care about the next age, He would HAVE to care about this age since there is a direct connection
3. If God exists, He created you to experience love, beauty, passion and compassion, mercy, and all matter of virtues. God has given you the ability to choose, He has given you the ability to reason and to seek Truth. Did He create these things for evil’s sake? That seems silly, because if God were doing these things for evil’s sake all we would experience is evil, pain, and suffering undeserved… Did He create evil for good’s sake? No, for God did not create evil itself. Did God create agents with the potential for evil? Yes, because that is an ultimate God. Does God create suffering and allow it? Sure, for just punishment is God, and sin brings about suffering… because sin is evil. The suffering evil brings about is unjust suffering. The suffering God brings about is just. This comes back to hell.

Not a good example. Normal people do not engage in self-mutilation. A better example would be to engage in a legal activity, which is nevertheless harmful, like smoking. I do have a son, who used to smoke, and I did, too. Eventually we both gave up, and now use those electric cigarettes. But if he would have refused, I would have gave him my advice, and that is all. Of course he is not a child any more.

Ok, fair enough? Congratulations on quitting by the way, or at least for moving on to electric ones.

In that case to apply human terms, like “good”, benevolent, etc… is improper. You cannot claim the epistemologucal right to say “good things” about God, and deny my epistemological right to disagree… especially since I can substantiate what I am talking about. (No sign of God’s love.)

Sure there are signs of God’s love, such as love itself since your ability to love and be love would have to of been created. And good is a human term, but whether you can apply it to God depends on what yo mean by good. A good watch tells time.A good person does whatever it is a person, or a particular person, is intended to do. Really, all God must do to be “good” in the ethical sense is be consistent with His character, or His nature. Natural theology is the belief that God’s character, to some extent, can be seen in nature. Love is good, unnecessary suffering is bad. We see this in our nature. However, what action God “should” take depends on factors like metaphysics, consequences, etc. but what make’s God good is His character, which also determines action. I am not trying to take away your epidemiological right, but your epistemology is rooted in subjectivity. Basically you say God is not good because you don’t quite fancy the way He does things. But what if your morality is horribly wrong or your perception skewed and your understanding incorrect? Well, I suppose they couldn’t be if your view is true, but that is kind of the point. To say things like “good” and “evil” on your view loses their meaning. Instead you should just say “I agree” or “I don’t quite like that.” On my view, which is the general position of Virtue Ethics, is that “good” and “evil” are things that can objectively be understood and we can determine whether God is of ethical character or not. We determine this by 1) metaphysics, 2) Virtues and 3) character consistent with those virtues and actions consistent with that character.

During my break from the discussion, I realized that all I was doing was arguing logical possibilites with you, but know nothing of your life and circumstance. While I enjoy the dialogue and would love to continue, I realized that I was being near sighted and rather un-Christian. I do not know what you have been through or what you are going through. I know not who in your lfe may have passed and how you might feel about that. I do not know either way, but I apologize for arguing with you without taking time to understand and encourage you. Philosophy is great, but it s not the Christian life. I apologize. For what its worth, if there IS anything beneath the surface you would like to talk about, you can private message me. If there isn’t we can simply continue with our conversation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course it doesn’t make any sense. That’s why it is sarcastic.

Good sarcasm does not depend on a strawman depiction, but vividly and clearly shows the inherent incoherence of what is being jested. The fact that the butt of your sarcasm wasn’t even recognizable, except perhaps to you, might demonstrate that you were only “sarcasming” your own crippled version of an otherwise coherent viewpoint.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

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.

For my (little) knowledge of English, perhaps was better you have used to understand or to reason rather than to apprehend (see: for to reason: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/reason?region=us&q=reason ; for to apprehend, ENG and US: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apprehend?region=us&q=apprehend ; oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/apprehend?region=us&q=apprehend ; for to understand: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/understand?region=us&q=understand ) Because to apprehend, for what I could see on the Oxford Dictionary is more generic than the others.

So there are: to apprehend, to understand, to reason. If one ties every one of them to reason, the actions they represent are only actions of reason (and this can be admitted but not granted). So the problem falls on the verbs; do those verbs assure, in the facts (not by definition), that cannot enter (or be involved) in any way love, hope, faith, experience, senses etc. in the actions they represent?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Sorry for my late response

so was there really a time when jews believed that Gehenna was a place of eternal suffering?

Honestly, I’m not sure. Some Essene communities may have. We actually have a very limited knowledge of the sects of Second Temple Judaism, let alone Jewish sects that preexisted them. What I will tell you is that not all of them had the conception of Gehenna that you mentioned.

Remember that Jesus and his disciples were all Jews and and that Christianity began as a sect of Judaism before Gentiles were grafted in. It is debated now on what hell actually is, but if the traditional view of hell is what Jesus and the original movement actually believed… then yes, there were Jews who believed in a Gehenna of eternal suffering. I do not believe in a Gehenna of eternal suffering, though that does not mean that the punishment is not eternal (annihilation for example).

so what is it, does he love all the people or just those he adopts?

Highly debate. “For God so loved the world” seems to imply that God loves all humanity, but in a corporate sense. Distinctions need to be made between corporate and individual. As far as individuals, I do not know. Some would say that God does not love you until you are grafted into His only begotten Son, and all others will be subject to His wrath. Perhaps He loves who you can, may, or will become. I do not know, and I cannot know, the mind of God. What I do know is Jesus, him crucified, and resurrected. I also know that it will be much better for those who die in Christ than for those who die outside of him.

about that teenager analogy, loving parents let them go but they never ever shut the door on them. regardless of what they’ve done.

Unless the teenager passes away, in which case there is no bringing them back. I agree that there is something odd about a hell of eternal suffering. There is also something odd about Universalism, since, in that case, it would seem that everything done in this life is pretty arbitrary. Why preach the Gospel? Why be good, or bad, or anything? Why not commit suicide and just get this life over with to rush off to the next one of surpassing glory? Why doesn’t God just restore everyone and bring them to Himself now? Universalism may seem “pleasant” but it is incoherrent as far as I can see it.

Isnt it that facing reality and seeing how actually wrong you are brings people into genuine repentance?

If it is for the other person’s sake, not for your own. If I repent because I don’t want to get in trouble or face the consequences of my wrong doing, that is hardly contrition. Not wanting hell is not the same as desiring God.

those converts you met were former atheists. it means they finally saw god.
so whats the problem? what did they tell you?

For some, they saw God as a “spoiled sport” who wanted to hinder their freedom and ruin their good time.

Others were mad at God due to whatever circumstance, and sort of “disbelieved” in Him out of anger.

Some were afraid because they didn’t know how they might change if they conceded to God’s existence and received Jesus. They did not want to lose their selves, their identity.

For some its an issue of pride or pressure. They don’t want to be mocked by their friends, colleagues, or superiors for being a “stupid” or “irrational” Theist. They do not want to lose prestige or whatever “kudos” they get for being an atheist. Or, perhaps, their simply scared of being wrong (which could also apply to Theists, for sure).

Some atheists are atheists for purely intellectual reasons. However, I know now that there are many cases (certainly not all) were it is not only, or even primarily, the intellectual issue. Perhaps it was an obnoxious or overbearing religious family, the misconduct of a priest, the folly of a congregation, or some sad, traumatic life circumstance. Intellectual problems are sometimes a smokescreen or they are simply an aside. People are usually hurting more than they’re doubting.

 

[PRmerger]

You may have heard this as a faith-proclamation, but you apprehend it by reason, PR.

Sure.

 

[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.

Here’s a great example of following one’s faith even when it contradicts reason: giving your cloak to the man who has none.

It is not reasonable to give up one’s cloak.

However, it is the right thing to do. Apprehended by faith alone.

And thank goodness our world, so far, has not bought the Reason Alone Fundamentalist’s dogma.

Imagine what it would be like if we lived by Reason Alone! The poor would have no one to offer charity.

For, of course, it’s unreasonable to give your cloak away. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Wrong again. I have read it. So, there seems to be something wrong with your apprehending, which is quite normal as nobody is omniscient.

Really? When?

 

[belorg]

Not so at all. Photons dominated the universe during this period. But hydrogen, helium, deuterium and carbon were also created. Deuterium could only be created during the big bang within the first twenty minutes. After that the universe had cooled too much to create any more deuterium.
So yes, In the Beginning there was light dominating but also hydrogen etc., and Gods Spirit could indeed hover over the deuterium waters created within the first twenty minutes.
Of course, the light continued to dominate for a very long time…

…then there were the lights in the sky.
Those people were smart to guess light was created long before the lights were created.

Well, that is a perfect inllustration of why I think reason should come before faith. because if you start with faith, meaning doctrinal faith andtry to bend over backwards to make reason fit into it, you get stuck in your own words and startt claiming that ‘photons dominated the universe’ means the same as ’ there was just light, photons. 'Then maybe 'from nothing ’ means that in the universe, ‘nothing’ dominated, buit there was still ‘something’ ‘somewhere’.
That’s one of the reasons why I left Catholicism, BTW, bending over backwards hurt my back too mucjh