Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[sophion]

I will answer the Catholic way: we don’t judge ourselves. It is the Lord who judges. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.

so you dont know. despite your best efforts, you still dont know.

why arent you sure if you really accept god, or if you really reject him?

arent you sure if its yourself you want or if its god you want?

this is crazy

 

[belorg]

Rulings are made about things that some agent has control over. Seeing a unicorn is not something you have control over so no ruling can be made, but making an observation about courses of action taken - like making absolute rulings - presumes that a ruling or judgement about the action has previously been made.

If a spectator says, “Jones scored the goal!” that statement could be merely an observation, but it depends upon a prior determination or ruling on who actually scored the goal. If a referee says, “Jones scored the goal,” that is a ruling or determination and not merely an observation. However, the spectator can only make a verifiable observation following the referee’s determination. The observation presupposes the ruling.

Your statement, “I do not make absolute rulings!” could function as an observation, but that depends upon your prior judgement (or ruling) about the nature of your rulings, i.e., they are never absolute.

I do not make absolute rulings because I am not omniscient, so “I never have” is not absolute for the same reason.

is not merely an observation but a claim (* never have done so, i.e., made absolute rulings) verified by a prior determination (I do not make absolute rulings) about the nature of your rulings (i.e., they are never absolute). *

Ans so, “I never have” is not absolute. Since it cannot be absolute. It’s merely an observation.

Since this is, in itself, making an absolute claim (by your use of the absolute negation, never

), you have successfully refuted your own claim that you never make them.

“I never have” is not an absolute ruling. It cannot be. So, have not refuted my own claim, since I haven’t made an absolute ruling.
And that “I do not make absolute rulings” is an absolute ruling may be correct, but it’s not my ruling.

 

[PRmerger]

so you dont know. despite your best efforts, you still dont know.

Right. Because our salvation isn’t based on “our best efforts”.

Or were you under the impression that you were speaking to a Jew or a Mormon, who believe in a works-related faith?

why arent you sure if you really accept god, or if you really reject him?

Because, as we all do, we sin. We choose ourselves rather than God.

arent you sure if its yourself you want or if its god you want?

this is crazy

Have you never met a Christian who chose himself over God?

 

[PRmerger]

I do not make absolute rulings because I am not omniscient, so “I never have” is not absolute for the same reason.

Ok.

Then we are to believe that you may have done so? You’re not certain about this?

 

[belorg]

I have three answers to your contradiction.

1 free will
2 free will
3 free will

Love pre-supposes free will. This reality is self evident, all around you every day.
For example,
Let’s assume you are a married male. Do you want a loving relationship with your wife? If could FORCE your wife to do all the things that show love, would that indeed be love?..if you could FORCE the actions, against her will…Would that be love?

No, but that’s not the point.

The obvious answer is no, that is not love, that is having a blow-up doll, or a robot, not a realtionship between two persons. The loving relationship between God and a person presupposes a free will. The flesh and blood person across from you is free to love, OR reject you, that is the only way you have love. It is a risk. If she rejects you, she is separated from you then, out of your good graces.

So, if your wife leaves you, you immediately stop loving her? Well, I wouldn’t. And I am only cappable of limited love. So why would somebody whose love is unlimited stop loving us?

The opposite is dictatorship, it is rape, abuse.

The comparisons to hell are fairly obvious.

Not so obvious… Do you have children, clem? If so, if your son wants to use drugs, would you just let him do so? After all, the opposite is dictatorship, isn’t it?
The point is, if you are certain an action by someone you love is contrary to this person’s best interest wouldn’t you do all that’s in your power to make him or her see this and try everything to prevent this action?
Imagine now that you are all-powerful. Do you honestly think that giving somebody one chance would be all you could do? Or two chances, or three, or a hundred?
Do you honestly think that giving this person, say ,80 years to decide whether he should “choose” to love you is all you could do?

The real problem is : is this person capable of loving you? If he is, then, if you are truly worthy of love, this person will eventually love you. So, as an all-powerful being, all you would have to do is show him your love umambiguously and eventually he would answer that love, except if he is incapable of loving. But that is not his own fault.

 

[belorg]

Ok.

Then we are to believe that you may have done so? You’re not certain about this?

I am certain to the extent that a non-omniscient being can be certain.
That does not mean that “square circles are impossible” is not an absolute ruling. It is, but it’s not my ruling. It’s a ruling based on the laws of logic.

 

[belorg]

If your best interest is to actualize yourself, i.e., become your true self, and that can only occur by choices that you make, then God cannot compel you to become you. God makes the best you possible, but it is up to you to actualize or become you.

The best me is the me who actualizes my true self. If God makes the best me, then this best me will actualize my true self.
The real question is: is my true self someone who loves God or someone who doesn’t love God? If it’s the former, then God created me with a loving true self and I will be saved. If the latter is true, then God created me with a non-loving true self, and I won’t be saved, although in neither case am I responsible for what my true self is like.

God has a part for you to play on the “cosmic stage.” He has determined that it is in your best interests to play the part and being omniscient and omnibenevolent, he knows it is the best possible part for you and would make you the most fulfilled and happy. One hitch, that role is so “tailor-made” for you that it is the real and perfect you, but you must “grow into” the role. As you rehearse for the part, you notice that a discord begins to develop between you and the director of the show, God. You have different ideas about how “you” should be played, but these ideas of yours are problematic for others around you. God continues the play, but with a pseudo-you to play your part. You gradually drop out of the play and go off “on your own.” The play goes merrily on and you refuse to take part, preferring your own “pity party” to the real play despite the efforts of the other actors and God to draw you back in.

Is this my true self that prefers my “pity party”? If that’s so, that is because God created this true self. And if it’s not, God can show me my true self.

Should the director (God) simply abandon the real play in order to let you have it your way? Why, if he truly has your best interests in mind, should that ever happen? Why should your will trump God’s? Merely because you want it that way?

If the direcrtor is all-loving, yes, of course. I have heard a story about a man leaving all his sheep behind to go and look for the one lost. So, yes, God should abandon the real play until I am ‘found’.

 

[Viewscreen]

I have three answers to your contradiction.

1 free will
2 free will
3 free will

Love pre-supposes free will. This reality is self evident, all around you every day.
For example,
Let’s assume you are a married male. Do you want a loving relationship with your wife? If could FORCE your wife to do all the things that show love, would that indeed be love?..if you could FORCE the actions, against her will…Would that be love?

The obvious answer is no, that is not love, that is having a blow-up doll, or a robot, not a realtionship between two persons. The loving relationship between God and a person presupposes a free will. The flesh and blood person across from you is free to love, OR reject you, that is the only way you have love. It is a risk. If she rejects you, she is separated from you then, out of your good graces.

The opposite is dictatorship, it is rape, abuse.

The comparisons to hell are fairly obvious.

I seriously think you over-complicate love.

 

[belorg]

Because you don’t know what your best interests are?

But that is not my fault. If I am too stupid to knwo that, how can any of my choices be real?

 

[PRmerger]

Ans so, “I never have” is not absolute. Since it cannot be absolute. It’s merely an observation.

And, so, since you’re not quite sure if it’s absolutely true that you’ve never made an absolute statement, I am going to conclude that you actually have made absolute statements. A bunch of them, actually.

So you see that if you are here proclaiming that we can’t really believe what you state, absolutely, then we are left with the option of doubting the veracity of all of your statements.

 

[PRmerger]

So, if your wife leaves you, you immediately stop loving her? Well, I wouldn’t. And I am only cappable of limited love. So why would somebody whose love is unlimited stop loving us?

No, belorg. God never stops loving us. God cannot do anything BUT love.

It is we who choose to turn our back on Him.

 

[sophion]

Right. Because our salvation isn’t based on “our best efforts”.

Or were you under the impression that you were speaking to a Jew or a Mormon, who believe in a works-related faith?

Because, as we all do, we sin.

We choose ourselves rather than God.

Have you never met a Christian who chose himself over God?

keeping oneself from sin isnt an effort?

so hell isnt really just for those who didnt want to be with God. its also for all those wants to be with God but were less successful at resisting temptation & sin. no wonder the path up there is narrow.

---

thank god its all imagined.

 

[PRmerger]

But that is not my fault. If I am too stupid to knwo that, how can any of my choices be real?

I would proffer that you actually do know, that it’s written in your heart, but you just choose to follow the dark side whenever it pleases you. Even if you know it’s wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

keeping oneself from sin isnt an effort?

so hell isnt really just for those who didnt want to be with God. its also for all those wants to be with God but were less successful at resisting temptation & sin. no wonder the path up there is narrow.

see you in hell, my friend.

---

thank god its all imagined.

You will be reported for making the assertion that I am going to hell.

I will give you a few minutes to retract that, before I report.

 

[belorg]

Except that you forgot about the Catholic teaching that God is a gentleman, and offers us the Divine Marriage Proposal.

We are free to accept it. Or to refuse it.

God does not force himself upon us.

And, it appears, that while you have an objection to the Catholic teaching, you haven’t demonstrated any logical inconsistency in it.

God is love and there is a hell are not any more inconsistent than it is to say:

I love you but if you don’t love me I will let you go.

That’s what imperfect people do, yes. I you truly and unconditionally love somebody, however, you will only let him go if you are sure that’s his choice, made in full awareness of every consequence. In that case, however, he chooses in his own best interest, which you may not like, but should accept if you are truly loving. But if you happen to be omniscient and know that his choice is not in his best interest, your duty as a loving being is to do everything in your (infinite) power to make him see his best interest. That’s what I try to do as an imperfect father.

No one who understands logic will claim that the above is akin to a square circle argument.

Someone who understands the argument will see that an all loving God who isn’t all loving is akin to a square circle.

Rather, this would be a square circle argument, if the Catholic Church actually proclaimed it:

God is love and God makes you spend eternity with him, even if you despise him.That’s logically inconsistent.

If spending an eternity with Him is in our own interest, then that is not logically inconsistent at all. Loving is not the same as ‘spoiling’ someone with everything he asks for. True love always and necssarily has the other person’s best interest at heart, not just what this person’s immedialte needs are.
By your logic, if I see a women who wnats to go to bed with me, should I agreet, despite the fact that I think it is not in her best interest to do so?

 

[PRmerger]

I am certain to the extent that a non-omniscient being can be certain.

But that makes suspect every single one of your claims.

Now, each time you say something we know you’re thinking, “But I could be wrong about this, since I’m not omniscient.”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s what imperfect people do, yes. I you truly and unconditionally love somebody, however, you will only let him go if you are sure that’s his choice, made in full awareness of every consequence. In that case, however, he chooses in his own best interest, which you may not like, but should accept if you are truly loving. But if you happen to be omniscient and know that his choice is not in his best interest, your duty as a loving being is to do everything in your (infinite) power to make him see his best interest. That’s what I try to do as an imperfect father.

Sure. That’s exactly what God* has *done.

That’s what the Church is for.
That’s what grace does.

 

[sophion]

You will be reported for making the assertion that I am going to hell.

I will give you a few minutes to retract that, before I report.

forum rules:

On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice.

there was no malice there thats why i used
my friend, i dont even believe in hell! c’mon lighten up.

---

back to the topic: in your beliefs its hard to get to heaven. lots would go to hell. even those who wants to be with god.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone who understands the argument will see that an all loving God who isn’t all loving is akin to a square circle.

Exactly. That’s the Catholic POV.

 

[belorg]

I would proffer that you actually do know, that it’s written in your heart, but you just choose to follow the dark side whenever it pleases you. Even if you know it’s wrong.

Peter’s reply was “Because you don’t know what your best interests are?”. If I do not know what my best interests are, it is not true that I actually do know what my best interest are.