Help me with Hell

[LJH_80]

WOW, I thought i was the only one who thought this way. i agree with you, as much as i want to imagine that God is merciful, i have always found these things to be perplexing. for example, how could someone merit infinite torture for a finite amount of actions? and how is it that you could be happy in heaven if your family/ friends are in hell? these are questions i asked myself too. and unfortunately i have not found an answer to them yet either. so i guess me posting this was kind of pointless lol. but i just wanted you to know that you are certainly not alone in thinking this.

Well now you have your answer: When you get to Heaven, you won’t care about this anymore.
Following that logic leads me to a very uncomfortable place, so I won’t post it on here.

If you want to keep believing as you do, this needs to be placed firmly in the “I don’t understand it, but will take it on faith that I’ll understand it when I get there” basket. You can take some comfort in that every belief system, including pure science, has one of those baskets attached to it.

 

[davidv]

Umm… “Really Bad?”
I believe it’s exactly as bad as the Bible says it is. Find me anything about hell in the Bible that say’s it’s less than really bad and I’ll believe it’s less than “really bad.” I mean there is that once verse in John where he describes hell as “slightly unpleasant, there’s a bit of an odor to it, but there’s a great burrito stand on 4th street. The skiing is awesome, but the lines are rather long.”

And as for who makes it horrible, I fail to see how that’s relevant. I don’t wish eternal agony on anyone, no matter what they’ve done. Souls head toward eternal suffering, and God has the power to do something about it (if He didn’t, he wouldn’t be omnipotent), and He chooses not to. Ergo, God chose for hell to be as bad as it is.

Who makes hell horrible is extremely relevant. Because if God is all good He cannot create the evil of hell. Only those beings with free will who reject goodness can do so. It is very loving thing to not desire eternal agony on anyone. Our loving God shares this position with you. God’s power has already been exercised to do something for the sinners on their way to hell. Jesus was born a man, suffered as a pure innocent, was crucified, died and was resurrected on the third to smash the power of death and free us from sin. If we choose to stay enslaved to sin, that is not God’s doing.

 

[LJH_80]

Who makes hell horrible is extremely relevant. Because if God is all good He cannot create the evil of hell. Only those beings with free will who reject goodness can do so. It is very loving thing to not desire eternal agony on anyone. Our loving God shares this position with you. God’s power has already been exercised to do something for the sinners on their way to hell. Jesus was born a man, suffered as a pure innocent, was crucified, died and was resurrected on the third to smash the power of death and free us from sin. If we choose to stay enslaved to sin, that is not God’s doing.

Well first of all, it can’t be humans alone who make hell bad, since God threw Satan down there before the first human arrived. But we can say that it’s the inhabitants that make hell bad.

Nevertheless, we end up with the barbecue example from earlier. My friend puts too much gasoline on a barbecue, lights it, and sets himself on fire. Now it is entirely his fault that he is on fire, and he has made his torment himself through his own wrong choices. But if I have a fire blanket in my hands, I have the power to reduce his suffering, yes? If I choose not to do so, then I am choosing to allow him to suffer.
At this point in the debate, it doesn’t matter if I set the guy on fire, he set himself on fire, or some other person set him on fire, the fact that I have the ability to put out the fire and don’t means I’m choosing for him to suffer more.

So, could God simply put these souls to sleep, and thus not have them experience unending torture? I’m assuming He could, since he’s God. Ergo, God could act in a way that would reduce the suffering in Hell. The fact that He doesn’t must mean that either
1.) He doesn’t want to reduce their suffering.
or
2.) Their suffering serves some greater good.

And if we assume that He does care, then we are left with just assuming the #2 explanation, that somehow their perpetual torment serves a greater good. I don’t see it as yet, but maybe you can explain it to me.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

By your own logic, if a mugger points a gun at you and threatens to shoot if you don’t give him your wallet, and you refuse to give up your wallet, and he shoots you, then it’s your fault for not giving the mugger your wallet. You knew exactly what the threat was. You knew what you had to do to avoid it. And you refused. So, in a way, you basically shot yourself, right?

This is basic logic. You can’t posit an all-powerful God, make him the reason that hell exists, make him the source of all morality, along the rules that must be followed for one to avoid going to hell, then act like he has no responsibility for anyone winding up there. It’s not like God can’t do anything about this system - it’s just that he doesn’t. To say otherwise is nothing but special pleading.

This business about “God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves there” is simply the go-to line for folks too queasy to want to praise a being for sending their friends and loved ones into the everlasting fire.

In the end, of course, the mugger could shoot or not shoot, whether or not you give him your wallet… also, a migger wants your wallet for his own benefit, with no benefit for you…it’s not like your average mugger is offering eternal life of bliss if you do hand over your wallet, is it??? Kind of omitting the good stuff, aren’t you?

And this business of blaming God for their possible damnation is the get-out for those too queasy to want to accept the responsibility that they may be condemning themselves by denying that which is the source of all that is good

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well now you have your answer: When you get to Heaven, you won’t care about this anymore.
Following that logic leads me to a very uncomfortable place, so I won’t post it on here.

If you want to keep believing as you do, this needs to be placed firmly in the “I don’t understand it, but will take it on faith that I’ll understand it when I get there” basket. You can take some comfort in that every belief system, including pure science, has one of those baskets attached to it.

I think it is uncomfortable stuff… there seem to have been recent proclamations that indicate a more liberal approach to ‘how to get to heaven’, but those heaps of very commonly practiced mortal sins are still sitting there quietly for people to condemn themselves with at the drop of a hat, especially since half of them are entirely and literally recommended and celebrated practices in many of the societies we live in in general …

I always sort of hope Purgatory is bigger than has previously been reported…

 

[davidv]

Well first of all, it can’t be humans alone who make hell bad, since God threw Satan down there before the first human arrived.

I said free being, of which the angels are one. How is removing the one who choses to reject goodness from the place of goodness be equated with creating hell?

But we can say that it’s the inhabitants that make hell bad.

Nevertheless, we end up with the barbecue example from earlier. My friend puts too much gasoline on a barbecue, lights it, and sets himself on fire. Now it is entirely his fault that he is on fire, and he has made his torment himself through his own wrong choices. But if I have a fire blanket in my hands, I have the power to reduce his suffering, yes? If I choose not to do so, then I am choosing to allow him to suffer.
At this point in the debate, it doesn’t matter if I set the guy on fire, he set himself on fire, or some other person set him on fire, the fact that I have the ability to put out the fire and don’t means I’m choosing for him to suffer more.

So, could God simply put these souls to sleep, and thus not have them experience unending torture? I’m assuming He could, since he’s God.

Seems like an unjustified assumpiton. How do you know this is even possible?

Ergo, God could act in a way that would reduce the suffering in Hell. The fact that He doesn’t must mean that either
1.) He doesn’t want to reduce their suffering.
or
2.) Their suffering serves some greater good.

Invalid argument, a false dicotomy. It also contains a false premise the suffering is evil.

And if we assume that He does care, then we are left with just assuming the #2 explanation, that somehow their perpetual torment serves a greater good. I don’t see it as yet, but maybe you can explain it to me.

No, your conclusion does not follow because of the reasons already provided.

 

[LJH_80]

I said free being, of which the angels are one. How is removing the one who choses to reject goodness from the place of goodness be equated with creating hell?

Well yes, in the last post you did, but in the second to last post, you said “I believe that the badness of hell is human made, not God made”
But again, I already gave you the point by admitting it was the inhabitants that made it bad.
I am curious on your implication that God did not create Hell. Does that mean that there exist things not created by God? I find that interesting.

davidv:

Seems like an unjustified assumpiton. How do you know this is even possible?

… you’re actually basing your argument on the idea that God is not omnipotent, and asking me to find support that He is?

For nothing is impossible with God.

With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Do you need more?

davidv:

Invalid argument, a false dicotomy. It also contains a false premise the suffering is evil.

I never said that suffering was evil. I only said that if I loved someone I would not want to see them suffer any more than they had to. If they need to have a tooth pulled, I understand the idea of suffering for a greater good. If a child needs a spanking to learn a lesson, I grant the idea of a greater good.

Watching indifferently while somebody I love is suffering agony I could prevent is not how I choose to show love to those I personally care about.

 

[davidv]

Well yes, in the last post you did, but in the second to last post, you said “I believe that the badness of hell is human made, not God made”
But again, I already gave you the point by admitting it was the inhabitants that made it bad.

So I did. Pardon my imprecision. Human should have been state as free willed being.

I am curious on your implication that God did not create Hell. Does that mean that there exist things not created by God? I find that interesting.

Did God create the automobile that I drive? I don’t think so. There are probably a few design engineers in that auto company that would be very upset the I claimed they didn’t design it.
Sin exists, it is not created by God, it is created by the one who disobeys.

… you’re actually basing your argument on the idea that God is not omnipotent, and asking me to find support that He is?

Really? Where did I make this argument?

Do you need more?

No. Quoting me out of context Biblical text in attempt to refute the teachings of its editor aren’t very convincing.

I never said that suffering was evil.

It was implied to me in you line of questions and resposes.

I only said that if I loved someone I would not want to see them suffer any more than they had to. If they need to have a tooth pulled, I understand the idea of suffering for a greater good. If a child needs a spanking to learn a lesson, I grant the idea of a greater good.

Good. Then you shouldn’t have any trouble granting that maybe you don’t know enough to proclaim that anyones suffering is more than they need to, unless of course they are complicit in causing it.

Watching indifferently while somebody I love is suffering agony I could prevent is not how I choose to show love to those I personally care about.

Since you have already granted the benefit of some suffering, someones suffering is hardly sufficient evidence of indiffence. God has proclaimed often that He wants all to be happy with Him in heaven.
He has also given explicit instructions on how to gain this happiness and He established the Church to refine these instructions for the current conditions.

 

[LJH_80]

David,
I am going to have to end our debate, as I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere.

I said 2 posts ago that God either didn’t care, or that it was part of some greater good that I did not see.

You said that was an illogical argument.

Now you say

Then you shouldn’t have any trouble granting that maybe you don’t know enough to proclaim that anyones suffering is more than they need to, unless of course they are complicit in causing it.

Which means that I made a statement, you argued against my statement. I repeated your argument for clarification, and you argued against my rephrasing by taking the stance that I originally said.

This is ceasing to feel productive to me, so I will not be responding to further arguments from you.

 

[Robertanthony]

there are many problems with your point of view.

first of all, if you love someone, your love is not affected by their deeds. just because someone does evil doesnt mean a person will automatically stop loving him. perhaps thats just YOUR life’s philosophy. but i know its not really what you think, you just dont understand the enitirety of the situation. ask yourself this, if you were to find out that your mother or father or son or daughter was a bank robber, or a drug dealer, would you stop loving them? would your love turn off like the light turns off at the flip of a swicth?

Hi someperson555, as a disclaimer if I GOT to make the rules, judging with my limited judgment and intellect, I’d elect “annihilationism” , perhaps after a “time” of chastisement (so sins don’t go unpunished and justice is served). The problem here is that we’re speaking as mere mortals, with mortal bodies, clouded intellect and judgment, affected by the effects of original sin whereas in Heaven, we’ll have glorified bodies and we’ll see things clearly, as they really are, we’ll have the Beatific vision, and we’ll see that God’s judgment was just. It’s still a mystery how God will ordain things in a way that we won’t feel grief for our loved ones who are lost, or perhaps we’ll feel it to some extent but not to the point of being consumed or overwhelmed by it. If one of my relatives committed a crime and went to jail, I’d be devastated (my child, I’d be devastated beyond repair) but would feel that they deserved to go to jail. How God will make it possible for us to not feel devastated by our loved ones who are damned is well, well above my pay grade, i just believe that sorrow and sadness won’t be part of Heaven, that is all.

 

[someperson555]

Hi someperson555, as a disclaimer if I GOT to make the rules, judging with my limited judgment and intellect, I’d elect “annihilationism” , perhaps after a “time” of chastisement (so sins don’t go unpunished and justice is served). The problem here is that we’re speaking as mere mortals, with mortal bodies, clouded intellect and judgment, affected by the effects of original sin whereas in Heaven, we’ll have glorified bodies and we’ll see things clearly, as they really are, we’ll have the Beatific vision, and we’ll see that God’s judgment was just. It’s still a mystery how God will ordain things in a way that we won’t feel grief for our loved ones who are lost, or perhaps we’ll feel it to some extent but not to the point of being consumed or overwhelmed by it. If one of my relatives committed a crime and went to jail, I’d be devastated (my child, I’d be devastated beyond repair) but would feel that they deserved to go to jail. How God will make it possible for us to not feel devastated by our loved ones who are damned is well, well above my pay grade, i just believe that sorrow and sadness won’t be part of Heaven, that is all.

then it seems we are basically in agreement. i understand completely that our mortal intellect and reasoning can not possibly know the reasons why God chose to establish the laws that he did. lol if i were God, i would have it the same way as your version. “make Hell a temporal place of suffering”. i think most other people would have it that way too. but yeah, unfortunately we have to have faith that God’s way is also fair.
as for missing our loved ones. i just like to imagine that i would still miss them in some way. i dont want to completely forget them. i dont want to be completely happy if i cant have my loved ones by my side.

 

[Serious]

Which means that I made a statement, you argued against my statement. I repeated your argument for clarification, and you argued against my rephrasing by taking the stance that I originally said.

A perfect example of the way most people “argue” around here. If you state a proposition, they will “argue” against it. If you state the opposite of the same proposition, they will “argue” against it, too. If you give examples from the bible or from the catecism, you will be accused of taking it out of context. Such a cheap shot, it is never shown, just how it should be explained in context. Basically they want their cake and eat it, too. Fortunately there are a few (very few) exceptions to this behavior. But most are not worth to talk to. Pity.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

A perfect example of the way most people “argue” around here. If you state a proposition, they will “argue” against it. If you state the opposite of the same proposition, they will “argue” against it, too. If you give examples from the bible or from the catecism, you will be accused of taking it out of context. Such a cheap shot, it is never shown, just how it should be explained in context. Basically they want their cake and eat it, too. Fortunately there are a few (very few) exceptions to this behavior. But most are not worth to talk to. Pity.

Actually, makes sense. The inverse of a proposition, if absolute, will thus probably have the same problems (in reverse, presumably) of the original propostion. Examples from the Bible and/or Catechism are often misinterpreted wildly and shamelessly (and doubtless, often, deliberately) by those who oppose them (and here i’m looking not just at casual contenders but even the most famous/respected of detractors - Bertrand Russell leaps proudly to mind)… looks like everyone wants their cake and to eat it too, then

 

[Serious]

Actually, makes sense. The inverse of a proposition, if absolute, will thus probably have the same problems (in reverse, presumably) of the original propostion.

Impossible. If I would assert that the sky is blue, and you would argue that the sky is NOT blue… and later I would assert that the sky is NOT blue (just for the fun of it - to lay a trap), and then you would argue that the sky is indeed blue, then you would try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth.

Examples from the Bible and/or Catechism are often misinterpreted wildly and shamelessly (and doubtless, often, deliberately) by those who oppose them (and here i’m looking not just at casual contenders but even the most famous/respected of detractors - Bertrand Russell leaps proudly to mind)… looks like everyone wants their cake and to eat it too, then

Says who? There is no official declaration of how to interpret the bible or the catechism. Therefore you have no epistemological right to declare that someone’s interpretation (which is usally just a direct quotation) is taken out of context. Especially if you neglect to state what would be the correct interpretation. As I said, it is the cheapest of all the cheap shots.

 

[LJH_80]

Impossible. If I would assert that the sky is blue, and you would argue that the sky is NOT blue… and later I would assert that the sky is NOT blue (just for the fun of it - to lay a trap), and then you would argue that the sky is indeed blue, then you would try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth.

Yes and no.

There is a valid stance of pushing on any given stance, to see if the speaker has rationally backed it up.

If you come to me with a theory on whether dogs can recognize shapes (just as an example). Either side you take, I will disagree with you, not because I necessarily think you’re wrong, but because I want to see the evidence you used to back up your claim.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Impossible. If I would assert that the sky is blue, and you would argue that the sky is NOT blue… and later I would assert that the sky is NOT blue (just for the fun of it - to lay a trap), and then you would argue that the sky is indeed blue, then you would try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth.

Says who? There is no official declaration of how to interpret the bible or the catechism. Therefore you have no epistemological right to declare that someone’s interpretation (which is usally just a direct quotation) is taken out of context. Especially if you neglect to state what would be the correct interpretation. As I said, it is the cheapest of all the cheap shots.

if the CCC is not clear then i guess nothing is clear, anything can mean anyhing. It doesnt help any agruement.
Ubenedictus

 

[Odell]

I have read through to the second page and figured now would be a good time as any to contribute.

The images of hell in scripture show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather* than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.

It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

Now I think of hell as a marriage gone wrong. It’s only proper sence heaven is spoken in terms of a marriage. My wife and I have a strong marriag. We have had our ups and downs, but all along it’s only made us stronger. We have grown deeper roots as PJPiI would say. Now when we lived our marriage not as we should have “in the eye of God” we where miserable. God laws are meant to bring us greater joy and love. Many don’t see Gods laws in this manner and view His laws as a wall to true love.

When we live our life as God planed, a happy marriage it is.

Now take my wife’s sister for instance who has three kids two different “baby daddies” and now has men in and out of her home. She is miserable. People like my wife and I can see the source of her missery. However she does not desire a marriage as my wife and I. No matter how perfect my little family is she and for the rest of the world for that matter see kids and a marriage as mine burdensome. Yet they are the ones miserable.

Now do I feel for her? Yes, but I also understand she is solely coupleble for making her own life a living hell. No matter how wonderful my marriage is or how many times I could try to convince her, her source of missery it would never be enough except by a miricle of course. You can’t feel sorry for someone but so much. It’s the life stile she clearly wants to live. In her mind having men over makes her happy.

Could God force her to believe and enjoy a marriage such as mine? Absoulutly! But that would be liken to me forcing my wife to marry me. What love is a marriage that your spouse did not freely choose you?. This is the marriage God longs for us to have with Him in heaven and unfortunately it’s not very appealing to many.

Hope this helps!

 

[Serious]

Yes and no.

There is a valid stance of pushing on any given stance, to see if the speaker has rationally backed it up.

If you come to me with a theory on whether dogs can recognize shapes (just as an example). Either side you take, I will disagree with you, not because I necessarily think you’re wrong, but because I want to see the evidence you used to back up your claim.

That is not what actually happens. I ask a question, and there comes a reply. Then I ask the same question, with a slightly different wording, and the answer will be the exact opposite of what has been given before. It is not simply a dispassonate, intellectual disagreement with what I happen to say, it is a rather passionate defense of what has been adamantly denied before. And that is intellectually dishonest in my book - or maybe it comes from sheer stupidity. I am not sure which is worse.

 

[Serious]

if the CCC is not clear then i guess nothing is clear, anything can mean anyhing. It doesnt help any agruement.

That is pretty much the case. Just like the bible, where you can pick and choose and you can find supporting arguments for anything and it exact opposite. Do you wish to argue against slavery? Or do you wish to defend slavery? You can find supporting arguments for either side.

How to resolve it? Simple. The church should give out a precise “Catholic Annotated Bible” and in that give the proper way to interpret each chapter and verse. Tell us that Chaper X, Verse Y is to be taken literally, while Chapter Z, Verse Q is to be taken allegorically - and “this” is how the allegory is to be understood. As I said, simple.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

later I would assert that the sky is NOT blue (just for the fun of it - to lay a trap), and then you would argue that the sky is indeed blue, then you would try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth.

All this shows how shallow and dishonest your arguments are - you do realise that, don’t you? If you have to lay dodgy traps to win your argument, do you not think it’s because, with clarity, you have no genuine argument at all?

Says who? There is no official declaration of how to interpret the bible or the catechism. Therefore you have no epistemological right to declare that someone’s interpretation (which is usally just a direct quotation) is taken out of context. Especially if you neglect to state what would be the correct interpretation. As I said, it is the cheapest of all the cheap shots.

No, I think you’ve just managed the cheapest of all shots - I’ve got as much right to criticise your interpretation as you’ve got to make it and have it taken seriously… if you play that game in earnest, why would you have the pretense to expect your interpretation to have any relevance beyond yourself at all? Words make sense - well, generally