Hell made better

[truetofaith]

This topic is a big waste of time!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The difference between “I do not believe in God” and “I do not believe in God because I reject the arguments for His existence”? Not really.

The difference is between “not believing that God exists” and “rejecting God”. Don’t you see this?.

The Bible is a collection of books of varying genres.

And some of them were accepted literally across the ages, like the literal 6 days creation, the Earth being the center of the universe, the talking serpent and the “rib-woman” so your critique about Furniss’s placing the hell to the center of the Earth is without relevance. On the other hand, the book carries the approbation of “William Meagher, Vicar General, Dublin, December 14, 1855”, which says: “I have carefully read over this Little Volume for Children and have found nothing whatsoever in it contrary to the doctrine of Holy Faith; but, on the contrary, a great deal to charm, instruct and edify our youthful classes, for whose benefit it has been written”. And the book is one of the worst “child-abuses” ever written.

Again: the Church is not a book club, in which everyone gets their own opinion. Nor is it a democracy, in which each argue for his own point and then we vote for which argument we like best.

Not true. Which books were included as “holy writ” and which were excluded as “apocryphal”, were the result of a voting process. Just like the divinity of Jesus. And the decision that women also have a soul… and many other questions. And even today there are widely differing OPINIONS about the nature of hell. Funny, that the church has no authoritative description about the final destinations “prepared” for us. Of course all you have is speculation.

You can judge whichever spin on Church teaching you like. However, unless you’re addressing what the Church actually teaches, then you’re on your own with your windmill-tilting.

There are very few things that the church “actually” and OFFICIALLY teaches, and the “precise” nature of hell is not one of them. The usual “understanding” (eternal torture) is revolting.

Which, when it all boils down, is just another way of saying “it is VL’s opinion that there is no direct revelation from God.” That’s fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion. That doesn’t make it true, however.

Just like YOUR opinion that there were direct revelations from God. Not even the church asserts that there was some “revelation” in the last few thousands of years. And there was / is no agreement about the alleged revelations. Ever heard of the schisms?

Good luck with that conscience of yours, then, which apparently has decided that you’re wiser than Jesus, his apostles, and two thousand years of rather intelligent philosophers and theologians!

Well, it is founded on the “golden rule”, which Jesus borrowed from other people. So I think I have nothing to worry about, and since I follow my conscience, I have nothing to repent. I certainly agree with SOME of the church’s teachings, but those teachings are not particular to the church, they are secular concepts. By the way most of those theologians could NOT agree among themselves.

Why? Because it speaks to the core of God’s plan: each one of us has the free ability to choose God or reject Him. If you choose Him, then you should follow the plan He’s constructed. If you reject Him, you’re following your conscience (down a dead-end street). The choice is yours… always!

Since God never spoke to us - everything that is attributed to God is a human concoction - there is no path to follow. And NOT believing in God’s existence is not the same as rejecting God.

No, but your claim was that only idiots do what is inappropriate. Don’t move the goalposts, now…!

It’s refreshing to know that there’s at least one perfect person gracing these boards…

I am merely consistent in my behavior. Never claimed to be perfect. And I am surprised that believers habitually commit grave acts and mortal sins. Of course they believe in “get out of Jail card”… called quick “repentance”.

Actually… no. God is. (Which is why, ultimately, it’s His judgment and His alone that matters.)

Nope, it does not matter, because God hides behind the clouds. I don’t think that people would actually reject God, IF he would manifest himself in some unambiguous fashion.

Hmm… I seem to recall this book entitled… what was it now? Oh yeah – “the Catechism of the Catholic Church”!

Why of Earth would you expect non-Catholics to accept the catechism? Not even all Catholics accept sizable parts of it… which is not surprising.

Not as a ‘list’, per se, but certainly, there are resources out there for you. (They tried the ‘authoritative list’ centuries ago. Priests had, at their disposal, a book of penances, which described the proper penance for each sin. A list like that just doesn’t work, though. We humans are awful creative – we come up with new ways to sin and new nuances on vice all the time.)

That is not an excuse. There could be an ever evolving collection of sins and their punishments. If only the church would admit that its teaching are not set in stone, and they need to be updated from time to time. But that is not something that the church is willing to admit. When they MUST make a modification, the deny it, and call it “clarification”. What do you think, why is it that the church loses credibility at an “alarming” rate? Especially in Europe.

There are a few reasons. One is the “Silentium Dei”, another one is the “problem of evil” and yet another one is the assumption of eternal torture in hell.

 

[tonyrey]

There are very few things that the church “actually” and OFFICIALLY teaches, and the “precise” nature of hell is not one of them. The usual “understanding” (eternal torture) is revolting.

“very few” overlooks the Catechism.

Just like YOUR opinion that there were direct revelations from God. Not even the church asserts that there was some “revelation” in the last few thousands of years. And there was / is no agreement about the alleged revelations. Ever heard of the schisms?

The Great Schism is not based on alleged revelations.

Well, it is founded on the “golden rule”, which Jesus borrowed from other people.

The golden rule is based on the original teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father.

Since God never spoke to us - everything that is attributed to God is a human concoction - there is no path to follow. And NOT believing in God’s existence is not the same as rejecting God.

Dogmatic atheism amounts to ignoring God and attacking religion.

Nope, it does not matter, because God hides behind the clouds. I don’t think that people would actually reject God, IF he would manifest himself in some unambiguous fashion.

Thereby depriving everyone of free will.

If only the church would admit that its teaching are not set in stone, and they need to be updated from time to time. But that is not something that the church is willing to admit. When they MUST make a modification, the deny it, and call it “clarification”. What do you think, why is it that the church loses credibility at an “alarming” rate? Especially in Europe.

In Europe it is the result of propaganda in the media about evolution…

In Africa, Asia and South America many people are becoming Christians.

 

[Vico]

…
I have been aware of the difference between the “grave matter” and the “mortal sin” a very long time ago. I may or may not agree that a certain act is a “grave matter”, and if I don’t agree, then even if I commit that act it is not done with full knowledge, even though it may have been committed with deliberate consent. And I am the only one who is qualified do decide if I should have known it. There is no objectively presented list of the “do’s” and “don’t’s” akin to the laws. Hell, not even the Catholic church has created a definitive list of the “sins”.

Full knowledge is of the moral character of the act as given by the Church, for example, the Catechism explicitly expresses what is grave matter, for example:

• “Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children.”
• “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”
• “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”
• 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Catechism
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

 

[tonyrey]

:clapping::clapping:

Full knowledge is of the moral character of the act as given by the Church, for example, the Catechism explicitly expresses what is grave matter, for example:

• “Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children.”
• “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”
• “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”
• 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Catechism IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

:clapping: Incontestable facts!

 

[Gorgias]

The difference is between “not believing that God exists” and “rejecting God”. Don’t you see this?.

I’ll rely on Pascal for my answer: if God exists, then “not believing” is the same as “rejecting”. (If He doesn’t, then “not believing” isn’t a problem.) Don’t you see this?

And some of them were accepted literally across the ages, like the literal 6 days creation, the Earth being the center of the universe, the talking serpent and the “rib-woman” so your critique about Furniss’s placing the hell to the center of the Earth is without relevance.

No, it’s entirely relevant. Infallibility doesn’t flow from individual priests or bishops, it flows from the magisterium (i.e., the ‘teaching authority’ of the Church, as expressed either by the pope or the entire college of bishops). It doesn’t matter that one cleric thinks that hell is in the earth’s core, nor does it matter that many have believed in real talking serpents or literal six-day creation. If the Church doesn’t teach it as doctrine, it isn’t doctrine.

Moreover, your attempt to sully the Church’s teaching by pointing to things she doesn’t teach is either misguided or deliberately misleading. Which is it, then?

Not true. Which books were included as “holy writ” and which were excluded as “apocryphal”, were the result of a voting process.

Very true.

The ‘teaching authority’ of the Church may use whatever means it wishes to reach its consensus in teaching. However, it reached consensus, not democratic majority vote; neither, as well, did it open the matter for voting among Church membership. Get your facts straight, VL…

And even today there are widely differing OPINIONS about the nature of hell.

Immaterial.

Funny, that the church has no authoritative description about the final destinations “prepared” for us.

Not funny; rather, it’s a good example of what we say: we don’t make this stuff up – if it isn’t given to us through the Bible or apostolic teaching, we don’t teach it.

Of course all you have is speculation.

Nope: Scripture and apostolic teaching is what we have. What you have is speculation. Glad I could clear that up for you…

There are very few things that the church “actually” and OFFICIALLY teaches, and the “precise” nature of hell is not one of them. The usual “understanding” (eternal torture) is revolting.

Again: just keep tilting at the windmills of your imagination’s construction. It’s entertaining.

Well, it is founded on the “golden rule”, which Jesus borrowed from other people.

“Borrowed”? I’d love to see you substantiate that claim. (Not that it exists in just about every major human religious tradition, mind you, but that Jesus borrowed it from a different tradition!)

Incidentally, it occurs in the Old Testament, as a description of the Mosaic law. It was part of the Jewish tradition. Jesus didn’t have to borrow it from elsewhere!

So I think I have nothing to worry about, and since I follow my conscience, I have nothing to repent.

You misunderstand ‘conscience’, then.

I am merely consistent in my behavior. Never claimed to be perfect.

You claim that you do not sin. That sure sounds like a claim of perfection…

Nope, it does not matter, because God hides behind the clouds.

God as “the big guy in the sky”? Keep working on those windmills, VL…

Why of Earth would you expect non-Catholics to accept the catechism?

You claimed that the belief system isn’t written up anywhere. I demonstrated that it is. Quit moving the goalposts, please.

why is it that the church loses credibility at an “alarming” rate? Especially in Europe.

Because, as in all generations, people get to decide for themselves if they wish to follow God or not. In the present society, there are many fidget spinners which draw peoples’ attention and keep them happy. They think they don’t need God. That’s why I think that some claim that the Church has lost relevance.

There are a few reasons. One is the “Silentium Dei”, another one is the “problem of evil” and yet another one is the assumption of eternal torture in hell.

For you? Perhaps. For the average person on the street? Not so much.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’ll rely on Pascal for my answer: if God exists, then “not believing” is the same as “rejecting”. (If He doesn’t, then “not believing” isn’t a problem.) Don’t you see this?

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and an “also ran” philosopher. “Rejection” is a volitional act, “belief” is not. The conscious decisions happen in the grey cells, the evaluation of arguments happen in the white cells (the subconscious), before the result emerges into the conscious. Of course this has been explained many times, and if you still confuse them, it makes conversation fruitless. I will not even bother answering the rest in details. It would be futile.

Just a few closing remarks. I do not deny that I speculate, since I do not have any hard evidence for God. (The evidence AGAINST God is simply the LACK of evidence FOR God. And it is overwhelming.) You (in plural) have no evidence either, it is all speculation. None of the believers can substantiate their assertions. The so-called revelations are just human concoctions. The only way to speak about God is to look at reality, use it as a starting point and make inferences from the observation. And that would show that God - if exists - does not care at all about us. We can also listen to the arguments of the believers and analyze what they say. The result is lugubrious. To be unable to see the contradiction between the “alleged love” of God and the actual state of affairs is pitiable. Anyone, with a modicum of intellect can se that the “creation” is miserable, and only an uncaring or dumb or downright evil creator would call this world “good”.

But, what the heck. If only you would realize and understand that you also have nothing else but speculation, such a conversation might be useful. But as long as you try to argue for the “magisterium”, or the infallibility of the pope, there is no reason to continue. Try to purge your mind of the “revelations”, the “infallibility”, and concentrate on the actual state of affairs. If you succeed, we might have a meaningful conversation. But not until them.

See you.

 

[Gorgias]

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and an “also ran” philosopher. “Rejection” is a volitional act, “belief” is not.

This is quite the interesting assertion!

Belief is not a conscious decision? Belief is not something that happens as a result of employing our human rationality? You’re gonna have to do better than posit ‘grey cells’ and ‘white cells’ to substantiate that claim. You’re right, of course: if that’s the best you can do, then more discussion on this topic will be futile. Sorry if you’re not up to it.

Anyone, with a modicum of intellect can se that the “creation” is miserable, and only an uncaring or dumb or downright evil creator would call this world “good”.

That’s a personal judgment, not an assessment of fact. You are, of course, free to make such a judgment. That doesn’t make it so, of course.

But as long as you try to argue for the “magisterium”, or the infallibility of the pope, there is no reason to continue.

Sadly, I might agree. You’ve made up your mind, and are certain you are more correct than all believers who have preceded you, and all believers are irrational. If that’s your stance, then no… there’s no reason to continue.

Try to purge your mind of the “revelations”, the “infallibility”, and concentrate on the actual state of affairs. If you succeed, we might have a meaningful conversation.

If the only conversations that you have that are ‘meaningful’ are the ones that agree with your point of view… well, have fun with an existence filled with confirmation bias.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Belief is not a conscious decision? Belief is not something that happens as a result of employing our human rationality? You’re gonna have to do better than posit ‘grey cells’ and ‘white cells’ to substantiate that claim.

No, I don’t need anything else. The fact that our decision making process primarily happens in the subconscious is very well documented. Of course you could show me that you could “decide” that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really superior to God, and you can “win” this argument. I will wait patiently. I did not make a conscious decision that God does not exist, just as you would be unable to make a conscious decision that the FSM is the “real” God, and the Christian God is merely a figment of your imagination.

Have fun.

 

[ANV]

Not so fast. I did not decide not to believe in God (or using different words: I did not choose not to believe in God). I did investigate the “pros” and “cons” presented by the apologists (formal or self-proclaimed) and reached the conclusion that their arguments are self-contradictory and nonsensical. That does not mean that I “rejected” God. I reject the arguments for God. Do you see the difference?

Interesting. I don’t think that you reject the WHOLE bible, JUST because it contains the obviously incorrect assertion that the circumference of a circle is THREE times the diameter. So Furniss has some unsupported ideas… just like anyone else who speaks about hell. But what he describes about hell is widely accepted by the “traditional” Catholics, who are upset by the “watered down” version of hell that is propagated by the “librul” apologists (like simple separation from God). And I find his “analysis” horrible and nauseating. If you have not read the whole thing, maybe you should. Maybe you would see why most people reject the “traditional” concept of hell as a sick, disgusting, horrific and despicable concept. Don’t judge the book by the cover.

Not really. It is the OPINION of some Catholics that it is the direct “revelation” from God. God does not speak to us, and there is no evidence that God EVER spoke to us. There is no direct evidence that God actually exists. Speculations, yes, actual evidence, no.

It does not matter. All that matters is that I listen to my conscience. And I am required to follow my conscience. Of course I am also aware of the caveat, that my conscience must be “well-formed”. Which means that it must coincide with the teachings of the Church. Why “worry” about the conscience is a mystery. The Church simply could declare that its teachings must be followed to the “T”, and forget about that pesky conscience.

I am not responsible for OTHER people’s actions. I never committed anything that I would have considered inappropriate, so there is nothing I would need to “repent”.

I have been aware of the difference between the “grave matter” and the “mortal sin” a very long time ago. I may or may not agree that a certain act is a “grave matter”, and if I don’t agree, then even if I commit that act it is not done with full knowledge, even though it may have been committed with deliberate consent. And I am the only one who is qualified do decide if I should have known it. There is no objectively presented list of the “do’s” and “don’t’s” akin to the laws. Hell, not even the Catholic church has created a definitive list of the “sins”.

This is for real, you concluded what you believe and that what you think, it’s not that you believe that there is a god and you choose to reject it.

 

[truetofaith]

This universe is so complex …but so well ordered…(planets revolving around suns , etc.) that it stands to reason…
**It had to be designed !** :thumbsup:

 

[tonyrey]

No, I don’t need anything else. The fact that our decision making process primarily happens in the subconscious is very well documented. Of course you could show me that you could “decide” that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really superior to God, and you can “win” this argument. I will wait patiently. I did not make a conscious decision that God does not exist, just as you would be unable to make a conscious decision that the FSM is the “real” God, and the Christian God is merely a figment of your imagination.

Have fun.

If all our decisions happens in the subconscious they are irrational and far more likely to be unreliable. Why not all?

 

[tonyrey]

This is for real, you concluded what you believe and that what you think, it’s not that you believe that there is a god and you choose to reject it.

According to VL such decisions are irrational!

 

[ANV]

According to VL such decisions are irrational!

According to VL, she or he clearly stated that it isn’t about decisions.

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and an “also ran” philosopher.

Unsupported assertions are worthless.

“Rejection” is a volitional act, “belief” is not. The conscious decisions happen in the grey cells, the evaluation of arguments happen in the white cells (the subconscious), before the result emerges into the conscious. Of course this has been explained many times, and if you still confuse them, it makes conversation fruitless. I will not even bother answering the rest in details. It would be futile.

The distinction doesn’t alter the fact that all the effects of the brain cells’ activity are irrational because they have natural causes which lack insight and understanding.

Just a few closing remarks. I do not deny that I speculate, since I do not have any hard evidence for God. (The evidence AGAINST God is simply the LACK of evidence FOR God. And it is overwhelming.) You (in plural) have no evidence either, it is all speculation. None of the believers can substantiate their assertions. The so-called revelations are just human concoctions. The only way to speak about God is to look at reality, use it as a starting point and make inferences from the observation. And that would show that God - if exists - does not care at all about us. We can also listen to the arguments of the believers and analyze what they say. The result is lugubrious. To be unable to see the contradiction between the “alleged love” of God and the actual state of affairs is pitiable. Anyone, with a modicum of intellect can se that the “creation” is miserable, and only an uncaring or dumb or downright evil creator would call this world “good”.

But, what the heck. If only you would realize and understand that you also have nothing else but speculation, such a conversation might be useful. But as long as you try to argue for the “magisterium”, or the infallibility of the pope, there is no reason to continue. Try to purge your mind of the “revelations”, the “infallibility”, and concentrate on the actual state of affairs. If you succeed, we might have a meaningful conversation. But not until them.

See you.

According to you all conclusions are human “concoctions” and equally irrational! Why should yours be more privileged than some one else’s?

 

[tonyrey]

According to VL, she or he clearly stated that it isn’t about decisions.

Regardless of the terminology the activity of the brain cells is irrational.

 

[tonyrey]

This universe is so complex …but so well ordered…(planets revolving around suns , etc.) that it stands to reason…

**It had to be designed !**  :thumbsup:

The obvious conclusion that is rejected by those who prefer to be unreasonable.

 

[Clevus]

There are indeed levels of existence in hell depending on degree of sentencing. It is the opposite to heaven where there are degrees of beatitude starting with peace and happiness and proximity to God. The demons rank has them jostling and backstabbing to a quieter niche. Hell is never good news. The best positions in hell are fought over and there is no rest or relief from torture, and guess who is at the lower order and relegated to the hell equivalent of the dumpsters and cesspools. Violence is a norm, and those bodies that have gone through a natural death are rebuilt and made self aware for the next onslaught. No sooner are the bodies repaired but are shredded once more. Putrefaction is all over, and there is no rest. The body tries to find respite to no avail. The lower positions are jealous of the higher and they self mutilate to obtain the higher ones only to loose it again. This goes on for eternity.

Exorcist Fr. Ripperger’s YouTube talks on hell are the shocking I have heard and it is sobering to say the least. One thing new I learned is that not only do the damned feel complete hopelessness, but they are persuaded by all that they don’t exist. There is no self respect because there is no self. "It"is as close as one can describe the state. People tear their own eyes out and maim themselves, for it is the maximum of every psychological state and defect. Hell is no B&B.

Sensus Fidelium Demons (1) and (2), Spiritual Warfare

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is for real, you concluded what you believe and that what you think, it’s not that you believe that there is a god and you choose to reject it.

Yes, exactly. Just like many other people, I was born into a religious family. Fortunately none of the extended family was the “hard-core”, “dyed-in-the-wool”, “fanatical” type. As we all know, children under a certain age have no critical skills, they mindlessly swallow whatever is poured into “funnel” inserted in their brain. So the same happened to me, and for many years I did not question the “dawg-mah”-s. Up until the point when I started to see the errors and inconsistencies in the apologetics, and the “dike” started to erode. It was NOT something I preferred, actually losing the “security blanket” was very much unwelcome. It was reassuring to believe that there is an “afterlife”, when one can see their deceased loved ones. But just because one find the daydream cozy and reassuring, it is not a good idea to cling to it.

Quite contrary to some nincompoops around here, people do not and cannot “choose” what they believe. They choose to listen, or reject to listen, but when push comes to shove people believe what they find convincing. Many times they are presented with a “test”. They are urged to try to believe against their convictions, and see if they can volitionally change their beliefs.

I doubt if anyone ever performed this experiment. There was no feedback about it, either a positive or a negative one.

 

[tonyrey]

…Quite contrary to some nincompoops around here, people do not and cannot “choose” what they believe…

A nincompoop is some one who cannot choose what to believe and has no control whatsoever over his or her mental activity, i.e, an idiot who needs to taken to a lunatic asylum…