Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[PRmerger]

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.

Even if you say something rude, and attach a smiley face to it, it’s still rude and uncharitable.

Do you think that it’s just fine to say to someone, as long as you smile, “You’re fat!”?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yes, and I disagree with Peter here. I think you actually do know what your best interests are. Every thinking person does.

 

[TruthSeekah]

Even if you say something rude, and attach a smiley face to it, it’s still rude and uncharitable.

Do you think that it’s just fine to say to someone, as long as you smile, “You’re fat!”?

Well, only if it’s true.

 

[clem456]

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?

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.

You are equating love with power, not with respect for free will.

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?

That’s not the question. The question is, why would anyone of their own free will choose to reject love?

 

[sophion]

Even if you say something rude, and attach a smiley face to it, it’s still rude and uncharitable.

Do you think that it’s just fine to say to someone, as long as you smile, “You’re fat!”?

depends. fact is i dont believe in hell so how can you take that statement seriously?
anyway report it if you must. lets leave that decision to them.

 

[belorg]

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

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

It cannot be that God has done all that’s in his power. God is an infinite being, he can never be done.

 

[belorg]

Yes, and I disagree with Peter here. I think you actually do know what your best interests are. Every thinking person does.

If it is in my best interest to spend eternity with God, then I do not know that, because this thinking person thinks that there is no God.

 

[PRmerger]

It cannot be that God has done all that’s in his power. God is an infinite being, he can never be done.

He* has* done all.

Revelation is complete. It reached its fulness in Christ Jesus.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Only true if you imagine that a “self” is the kind of thing with a determined nature like a rock or a tree. The best possible self could be essentially different: a being free of encumbrances. In order to self-actualize in this sense, one must choose the perfect self that has been created in the image of pure, unconstrained Actuality, God. To abdicate perfect becoming is brought about by a refusal to become your truly free and unencumbered self, thereby opting to remain “a shadow” of the reality of your self. Your self can be assumed or abdicated by you.

God provides the wherewithal for you to become or “take on” your free self, but in order to become truly your free self, you must freely choose to do so. It cannot be done for you by God or anyone else, because then it would not be you doing the choosing.

 

[PRmerger]

If it is in my bets interest to spend eternity with God, then I do not know that, because this éthinking personé thinks that there is no God.

I know that you aren’t 100% certain of the statement you made above.

So that leaves room for my statement here: You know in your heart.God exists :yup:

 

[belorg]

You are equating love with power, not with respect for free will.

I think you are equating respect for free will with giv ing a person all he thinks he needs. That’s spoiling someone, and it has nothing to do with free will.

That’s not the question. The question is, why would anyone of their own free will choose to reject love?

And the answer is: nobody of their own free will would reject true love.

 

[belorg]

I know that you aren’t 100% certain of the statement you made above.

So that leaves room for my statement here: You know in your heart.God exists :yup:

IUnless you make the absurd claim that I do not know what I know, you have no argument here.

 

[clem456]

I think you are equating respect for free will with giv ing a person all he thinks he needs. That’s spoiling someone, and it has nothing to do with free will.

And the answer is: nobody of their own free will would reject true love.

Ahhh, so we need to define what love is.
Can you agree love is not the same as spoiling someone?
Keep you kids in mind here, if you have them.

And yes, people freely reject love all the time. I mean ALL the time. Look around.

 

[belorg]

Only true if you imagine that a “self” is the kind of thing with a determined nature like a rock or a tree. The best possible self could be essentially different: a being free of encumbrances. In order to self-actualize in this sense, one must choose the perfect self that has been created in the image of pure, unconstrained Actuality, God. To abdicate perfect becoming is brought about by a refusal to become your truly free and unencumbered self, thereby opting to remain “a shadow” of the reality of your self. Your self can be assumed or abdicated by you.

And of course, only the perfect self can choose to become the perfect self.

God provides the wherewithal for you to become or “take on” your free self, but in order to become truly your free self, you must freely choose to do so. It cannot be done for you by God or anyone else, because then it would not be you doing the choosing.

IOW before I can become my true free self, I must already be my true free self.

 

[belorg]

Ahhh, so we need to define what love is.
Can you agree love is not the same as spoiling someone?
Keep you kids in mind here, if you have them.

Yes of course I agree that love is not the same as spoiling. I made that claim myself.

And yes, people freely reject love all the time. I mean ALL the time. Look around.

I am not sure about that.

 

[PRmerger]

And the answer is: nobody of their own free will would reject true love.

And you don’t really believe that, absolutely, either.

That’s too absolute.

You can’t know that with 100% certainty. And with that, that means that at least some people have, indeed, rejected true love.

We know that

1. because of your statement that you can never be 100% certain that you are correct.
2. Mathematically, if you’re not 100% certain that "nobody" rejects true love, then that means that, logically, *somebody *has rejected true love. That’s just basic logic.
3. our experience. We know tons of folks who have made stupid decisions, rejecting love, all the time. Reality tells us this. Can’t argue with that.

 

[belorg]

He* has* done all.

Revelation is complete. It reached its fulness in Christ Jesus.

Yes, and Jesus Christ still exists, doesn’t he? Isn’t he doing anything? And isn’t God doing anything?

 

[clem456]

pointless :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

IUnless you make the absurd claim that I do not know what I know, you have no argument here.

I am only following your paradigm. ** You** say that you don’t know what you know.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and Jesus Christ still exists, doesn’t he? Isn’t he doing anything? And isn’t God doing anything?

God is in the Eternal Now, belorg. There is no such thing, in the philosophical sense, of God “doing”.

It is all One Action.

That has already been accomplished in Jesus Christ.