Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgoforth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pig said:
Sadly science and my understanding do not stand still. My words are not dogma, sorry.😉
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be a good idea that you didn’t make the claims you did, then, pig?
 
PRmerger said:
I have no idea why people reject love!
Click to expand...
But you nevertheless believe that those people deserve hell, don’t you?
Maybe they reject love becaue that is the way they were created? Who knows? Apparently, you don’t.
 
belorg said:
Wouldn’t it be a good idea that you didn’t make the claims you did, then, pig?
Click to expand...
No. The best thing you can do is look at it yourself,here.
As you can see the photon epoch lasts anywhere from one second to one hour after the BB to nearly one million years. So yes there was just light. Within that light there was the formation of helium nuclei after 3 or 20 minutes and after 70,000 years matter dominated the photon epoch which continued for nearly another one million years.

Now I could have typed all that or I could have said just light, for a million years there was just light, or for 2,500 years there was just light or for 3 to 20 minutes there was just light, depending on how much of a pain you want to be about it.

I think that ‘In the Beginning there was light’ and ‘in the beginning there was one million years of light’ are a pretty good match.
 
belorg said:
I do not think the Catholic Magisterium is stupid enough to openly admit they want people to bend over backwards, PR. So, what are you asking for?
Click to expand...
So then you acknowledge that that was a teaching you just made up?
 
belorg said:
But you nevertheless believe that those people deserve hell, don’t you?
Maybe they reject love becaue that is the way they were created? Who knows? Apparently, you don’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone “deserves” hell, as in they earned it.

But I think everyone who’s in hell chooses hell.

But why they choose it, I have no idea.

For the same reason that someone chooses to sin. You know, with your reason, that it’s wrong. Yet you choose it anyway.

Why? I have no idea.
 
belorg said:
I’ll ask my wife to send you an e-mail. Or do you want more evidence? A photograph of me and a newpaper of 30 October and a copy of fides et ratio, perhaps. Shall I ask Mac Taylor to investigate this?
You claimed to know that I was honest, remember. So, you don’t knowo that anymore?
Click to expand...
You were just asking me to accept, on faith alone, that you had actually read Fides.

I reject faith alone here.

As far as being honest, I forgot that you made a statement that was deleted by the mods, and now claim you never said that.

I read it with my own eyes. You did say it.

So, based on that evidence, I rescind my statement that I believe you to be honest.
 
belorg said:
But you nevertheless believe that those people deserve hell, don’t you?
Maybe they reject love becaue that is the way they were created? Who knows? Apparently, you don’t.
Click to expand...
Let’s suppose “belorg” passes from this life and is eternally separated from God. This is a path belorg chose, no…?
 
belorg said:
That’s one of the reasons why I left Catholicism, BTW, bending over backwards hurt my back too mucjh
Click to expand...
That’s one way of seeing it, but someone could equally claim that the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics require a great deal of bending of one’s own preconceptions to accept. That some flexibility is involved in comprehending a world view, cosmology or theory is not, in itself, an argument against it. Just that understanding a complex set of truths may require extending oneself beyond what feels “comfortable, tidy and secure” is not an unexpected surprise except to the naive.

On the other hand, that Catholic teachings have been accepted by the most brilliant minds in history and simple, honest, pious old men and women argues against your inflexible characterization.
 
belorg said:
That’s one of the reasons why I left Catholicism, BTW, bending over backwards hurt my back too mucjh
Click to expand...
Bending over backwards, I think, similarly applies to the way in which the “scientific view” initially treated creation ex nihilo as contrary to the premise that matter could not be created nor destroyed, then switched to trying to define nothing as a “quantum vacuum” when Big Bang cosmology led to the implication that the universe, matter included, came to be from nothing.

Why does this “bending over backward” not qualify as a reason for leaving scientific materialism, if you are so concerned about back pains?
 
PRmerger said:
You were just asking me to accept, on faith alone, that you had actually read Fides.

I reject faith alone here.

As far as being honest, I forgot that you made a statement that was deleted by the mods, and now claim you never said that.

I read it with my own eyes. You did say it.

So, based on that evidence, I rescind my statement that I believe you to be honest.
Click to expand...
If you can’t even trust your own eyes, and your own memory, you are actually in no position to realy argue about this.
 
pig said:
No. The best thing you can do is look at it yourself,here.
As you can see the photon epoch lasts anywhere from one second to one hour after the BB to nearly one million years. So yes there was just light. Within that light there was the formation of helium nuclei after 3 or 20 minutes and after 70,000 years matter dominated the photon epoch which continued for nearly another one million years.

Now I could have typed all that or I could have said just light, for a million years there was just light, or for 2,500 years there was just light or for 3 to 20 minutes there was just light, depending on how much of a pain you want to be about it.

I think that ‘In the Beginning there was light’ and ‘in the beginning there was one million years of light’ are a pretty good match.
Click to expand...
Except, that is not what your creation myth says.It says that the earth came first and that is was dark.
 
Peter_Plato said:
That’s one way of seeing it, but someone could equally claim that the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics require a great deal of bending of one’s own preconceptions to accept. That some flexibility is involved in comprehending a world view, cosmology or theory is not, in itself, an argument against it. Just that understanding a complex set of truths may require extending oneself beyond what feels “comfortable, tidy and secure” is not an unexpected surprise except to the naive.
Click to expand...
It is true that the theoryb of relativilty etc requires flexibility to accept, but you shouldn’t compare a scientific theory with lots and lots of evidence with a dogma for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
On the other hand, that Catholic teachings have been accepted by the most brilliant minds in history and simple, honest, pious old men and women argues against your inflexible characterization.
Click to expand...
By minds who took 'Faith first, then reason as long as its stays within the confinements of this dogma."
 
Peter_Plato said:
Bending over backwards, I think, similarly applies to the way in which the “scientific view” initially treated creation ex nihilo as contrary to the premise that matter could not be created nor destroyed, then switched to trying to define nothing as a “quantum vacuum” when Big Bang cosmology led to the implication that the universe, matter included, came to be from nothing.

Why does this “bending over backward” not qualify as a reason for leaving scientific materialism, if you are so concerned about back pains?
Click to expand...
No, that is called reason. and scientific findings. And I am not a scientific materialist, so that doesn’t hurtmy back?
 
stewstew03 said:
Let’s suppose “belorg” passes from this life and is eternally separated from God. This is a path belorg chose, no…?
Click to expand...
No, that’s not a path belorg chose. Belorg honestly does not believe God exists, just as billions of others honestly think there is a God but not the Catholic one.
If I am incorrect, then I am probably too stupid to understand the “obvious Truth”, and too stupid to make a real choice.
 
belorg said:
Except, that is not what your creation myth says.It says that the earth came first and that is was dark.
Click to expand...
The Douay R. introduces Genesis with this;
*God createth Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days.
*
[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

They both look like introductions to me.
 
Ogreater said:
When I googled the question “Do Catholics believe in hell?”
Click to expand...
Aren’t you a Catholic?
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 would burn his child with a cigarette for an instant let alone send him into a furnace.
Why make God into an ogre?
Click to expand...
God doesn’t send people to hell, on the contrary, people send themselves to hell. A person who is in the state of mortal sin rejects God’s grace through his refusal to repent. This person using his free will, can either choose to repent (reconcile himself with God) or continue his sinful ways (remaining unrepentant and rejecting God’s grace). However, although this person may choose to repent anytime during his life, he may only do so until his death, until which, his state becomes permanent (thus, eternal punishment). For if this man died unrepentant, it follows that he would sin for an eternity granted that he lived forever. Remember, God calls everyone to repentance, as he loves all of us and wants us to be with him in heaven. However, as much as God wants us to be with him, we can always reject that invitation by saying “No thanks!” and embrace sin instead of his grace.

Moreover, while God may be loving, he is also a just judge. If we refuse to repent, then hell as our destination is rightly deserved. It doesn’t matter if you were a “good person”. If you did something wrong and refused to make amends despite the enormous amount of opportunities presented to you, you deserve to be punished (as good as a person you are). Drawing an analogy, a judge sentences his son to jail for some terrible act he committed.

Does the judge love his son despite sentencing him to a terrible place called prison? - Of course! I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to tear up while carrying out the act. 😃

As good as a person the son is, does he deserve to go unpunished? - No.

But more importantly, is the judge responsible for his son going to prison? - Nope, his son is through his own actions. Calling the judge an “ogre” for laying down justice on his son whom is totally responsible for whatever it is that he did and has coming for him is illogical. All the judge did was lay down the law. If anyone is to blame, it’s the son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top