Hell is an eternal threat, even for the Saved in Heaven.

[Nella]

Hey Christian! Assuming that christianity is true, have you ever realized that even when you get to heaven you can still go to hell?

Uh… Don’t know what you are smoking, but i certainly don’t want any of it!!

 

[brosam]

Hey Christian! Assuming that christianity is true, have you ever realized that even when you get to heaven you can still go to hell?

Please show us where this is found in scripture.

You would ask "now why in heaven’s name would I do anything that would offend God

?". Well, why did Lucifer and 1/3 of the heavenly hosts?

Because they rebelled against God.

In the bible, even good intentions can tick God off. Like when the Ark of the covenant fell on the side of the road and a poor fellow instinctly went and tried to catch it. Kazaaam! struck dead for touching the untouchable.

Actually, it had nothing to do with his “good intentions”. He died because of (a) disobedience and (b) because he was sinful and God is holy. This is why God never showed Himself in the OT. The one time He did, he turned His back to Moses because He knew the same thing would happen to Moses.

Think about it. The trinity is so fickle minded.

No, the Trinity isn’t fickle. You’re just relying on what you read on some anti-Christian website, rather than studying the scriptures for yourself.

 

[TraditionalCath]

for our non Catholic poster, the OP. Here is what CA library says about hell and so on:

the Trinity

Hell

 

[chris_molter]

um… just out of curiosity, who said that Angels and Men operate under the same divine rules and regulations?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Please show us where this is found in scripture.

Because they rebelled against God.

show me where it said they rebelled and i’ll show you the answer to your request.

Actually, it had nothing to do with his “good intentions”. He died because of (a) disobedience and (b) because he was sinful and God is holy. This is why God never showed Himself in the OT. The one time He did, he turned His back to Moses because He knew the same thing would happen to Moses.

it was instinct, not disobedience. the ark tipped over and he reacted to avoid it falling down the side of the road.

No, the Trinity isn’t fickle. You’re just relying on what you read on some anti-Christian website, rather than studying the scriptures for yourself.

I got that observation from reading the ENTIRE bible long before the term “website” was invented.

You should read the whole bible to see how radical was Jesus’ personality compared to Yahweh of the OT.

 

[brosam]

show me where it said they rebelled and i’ll show you the answer to your request.

They’re two different things. It says that the Devil rebelled and took 1/3 of the angels with him. It doesn’t say that God’s children rebelled.

it was instinct, not disobedience. the ark tipped over and he reacted to avoid it falling down the side of the road.

And God said not to.

I got that observation from reading the ENTIRE bible long before the term “website” was invented.

The problem is that, for somebody who claims to have read the “entire Bible”, you seem to be pretty ignorant about what it teaches.

You should read the whole bible to see how radical was Jesus’ personality compared to Yahweh of the OT.

I have read it. Been studying it for about twenty years and preaching and teaching it for about thirteen years.

 

[AgnosTheist]

um… just out of curiosity, who said that Angels and Men operate under the same divine rules and regulations?

angels appear to be sentient, self-aware & intelligent…just like us. They appear to have free will just like us. Unless there is double standards, both should operate under very similar moral standards.

HEY CHRISTIANS!

As long as you have free will you will be open to sin.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The problem is that, for somebody who claims to have read the “entire Bible”, you seem to be pretty ignorant about what it teaches.

I have read it. Been studying it for about twenty years and preaching and teaching it for about thirteen years.

Now thats more like it. Lets see what you got.

They’re two different things. It says that the Devil rebelled and took 1/3 of the angels with him. It doesn’t say that God’s children rebelled.

Angels are God’s children, as was the Devil.

And God said not to.

God said that along time ago before the incident. The guy acted with instinct, just trying to help. Yahweh should have been a little more considerate… like when Jesus let Magdalene live.

 

[brosam]

Angels are God’s children, as was the Devil. Well maybe he got disowned after he fell from grace.

Where does the Bible say that angels are God’s children?

God said that along time ago before the incident. The guy acted with instinct, just trying to help. Yahweh should have been a little more considerate… like when Jesus let Magdalene live.

First of all, when God said it doesn’t negate the fact that God did say it.

Second, what do you believe Mary Magdalene did that warranted death?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Where does the Bible say that angels are God’s children?

Genesis 6:1-2

*When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. *

Who’s ignorant now? What happened to your 20 years of bible study?

First of all, when God said it doesn’t negate the fact that God did say it.

what do you mean?

Second, what do you believe Mary Magdalene did that warranted death?

You know what I am referring to. Though the Gospels did not name that woman, CC traditions say it was Magdalene.

 

[brosam]

Genesis 6:1-2

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Who’s ignorant now? What happened to your 20 years of bible study?

Don’t worry, you’re still the ignorant one. The passage says nothing about angels.

You know what I am referring to. Though the Gospels did not name that woman, CC traditions say it was Magdalene.

I don’t care what “CC traditions” say. I’m not Roman Catholic. I go by the Bible, not “CC traditions”. Now, what is it that Mary Magdalene did that you believe was worthy of death?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Don’t worry, you’re still the ignorant one. The passage says nothing about angels.

LOL! I knew you would stoop that low. Resorting to extreme literalism. Well, thats how everybody understands it. Why, do you have a better idea on what those “sons of God” were?

I don’t care what “CC traditions” say. I’m not Roman Catholic. I go by the Bible, not “CC traditions”. Now, what is it that Mary Magdalene did that you believe was worthy of death?

The point is, Jesus let that woman pass.

 

[brosam]

LOL! I knew you would stoop that low. Resorting to extreme literalism. Well, thats how everybody understands it.

First of all, “everybody” doesn’t understand it that way. It’s actually a very small minority that believes that.

Second, “‘everybody’ understands it” doesn’t make it true. You still have a responsibility to explain why they understand it to be that way.

Why, do you have a better idea on what those “sons of God” were?

Yes. They were men of the lineage of Seth.

The point is, Jesus let that woman pass.

Sure He did. Why wouldn’t He have?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Brosam, before proceeding…peace be with you. Please, next time dont underestimate a new comer. Some of us non-believers actually know something. Dont just label someone as ‘ignorant’. Get to know him first.

 

[brosam]

Brosam, before proceeding…peace be with you. Please, next time dont underestimate a new comer. Some of us non-believers actually know something. Dont just label someone as ‘ignorant’. Get to know him first.

Why should I not think of someone who claims to have read the “entire Bible”, but still doesn’t know what it says as ignorant? I’m sure you may be a swell guy, personally, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you haven’t a clue what the Bible teaches.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Why should I not think of someone who claims to have read the “entire Bible”, but still doesn’t know what it says as ignorant?

Some first impressions often paint someone as ignorant. God knows thats how I saw you too. But before speaking out your mind and labeling the person, give him a few chances to explain. Just a suggestion. Anyway I can hardly blame your reaction, for places like these can become very hot and a lot of misunderstandings often take place.

 

[AgnosTheist]

First of all, “everybody” doesn’t understand it that way. It’s actually a very small minority that believes that.

‘everybody’ was a hyperbole. The idea that they were fallen angels are the most popular. Thats often the first explanation that you get when you google the term ‘nephilim’.

Second, “‘everybody’ understands it” doesn’t make it true. You still have a responsibility to explain why they understand it to be that way.

this pretty much explains it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Yes. They were men of the lineage of Seth.

and how is it that their children were all giants and extraordinary folks who became heroes?

Sure He did. Why wouldn’t He have?

Jesus was sweet. Yahweh was brutal and can be unreasonably unforgiving. Thats the idea of a fickle minded Trinity.

 

[Other_Eric]

It seems to me that the OP’s argument is facially reasonable. He knows that both the angels and men are possessed of free will. He therefore makes the assumption that since the angels have fallen, having been in the presence of God, that men who have been admitted to the Beatific Vision may similarly fall. In this, then, he views heaven as though it were placed upon the edge of a precipice, where even the slightest deviation from God’s will merits eternal repercussions. For the OP, heaven is a comfortable chair at a feast but always with the sword of Damocles suspended overhead. Based on the knowledge the OP appears to have, I again say that this is a reasonable inference.

The OP has quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in order to demonstrate that “angelic spirits and the souls of the just” enjoy the Beatific Vision. (1) In the first place, we must agree on what it is we mean when we refer to “angels.”

St. Augustine says: “‘Angel’ is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit;’ if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel:’ from what they are, ‘spirit,’ from what they do, ‘angel.’” With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they “always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” they are the “mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word”. (2)

It seems then, that the colloquial tradition of referring to Satan and his ilk as “fallen angels” might be misleading to people like the OP if they do not understand that in referring to them as such, we are referring not to their nature but to the office which God had prepared them for and they never attained.

The OP has referred to Scripture in an attempt to demonstrate that Satan and his ilk were in heaven at the time of their falling because they “lost their place in heaven.” In looking up the same Scripture, the meaning becomes clearer as the NAB version says:

The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. (3)

Emphasis mine. From this it is clear that Satan lost his place in heaven in the same way that I lose my seat on a plane if the plane takes off without me. The OP has therefore not demonstrated that any of the demons were in heaven or that they beheld the Beatific Vision at the time of their falling.

In the end, the facially reasonable argument that the OP makes disintegrates once one examines the actual teachings of the Church on the nature of the angels and the fall of those spirits represented by Satan.

(1) Pace, E. A. “Beatific Vision.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Available online at: newadvent.org/cathen/02364a.htm

(2) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 329. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1A.HTM

(3) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rev. 12:7-8. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation12.htm

 

[brosam]

and how is it that their children were all giants and extraordinary folks who became heroes?

You’re assuming that by “giants” it’s referring to Jack and the Beanstalk-type giants. It has nothing to do with physical size.

Jesus was sweet. Yahweh was brutal and can be unreasonably unforgiving. Thats the idea of a fickle minded Trinity.

First of all, Jesus and Yahweh are the same.

Second, if you don’t believe that Jesus is going to judge the world and send sinners to Hell, or that God didn’t show immense love and mercy in the OT, then you haven’t read the Bible.

Some first impressions often paint someone as ignorant.

I’m not going by “impressions”. I’m looking at your claim to have read the Bible and then your statements that show that you don’t have any clue what the Bible says.

God knows thats how I saw you too.

And that’s fine. The difference, of course, is that I do know what scripture says.

 

[distracted]

Satan …had the free-will to reject God and did so, because following his own will was more important to him than happiness. …Our own experience tells us that people are often willing to make great sacrifices in personal happiness in order to have their own way. It isn’t happiness they want, it’s autonomy.

Thank you. I really needed to read this.

For one thing, it reminded me of someone i know… hmmm… Now that i think about it, i know several people who seem to fit this description (of desiring autonomy over Heaven, God and true happiness). I suppose we are all like that at one time in our lives or another. But some of us realize our mistake and repent… I think that is what Christianity is all about - repentance… admitting we are wrong, seeking the right… seeking God in spite of all that would draw us away from Him… all that looks like “gold” (precious) but isn’t…