Help me with Hell

[John_Q_Sinner]

And for any other church, this might be an option. But the Catholic Church’s entire basis is that it does not answer to its congregation, it has a direct line to God, and the -]will/-] opinions of its followers are irrelevant.

This was one thing I found to be interesting too. I always felt the way the Catholic Church does things indicated they were truly representing a specific being (God) and not beings (the individuals). I know you look at it as a bad quality but I look at it as a very good one. Most faiths preach God is perfect (without change) and therefore timeless. If the Church who claims to be Christ’s Mystical Body was to change then God could not be considered God and their Church could not be considered His Mystical Body.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I am having a problem with the concept of Hell.

Many of my good friends are non-Christians. If I get into Heaven, and they go into Hell, then this poses a problem to me.

Imagine a dear friend of yours is burning alive in extreme pain.
Now imagine yourself sitting back watching, saying “Wow, this really is paradise!”
I cannot imagine myself feeling blissful for eternity knowing that people I care about are suffering unimaginable torment for all eternity.

I know that in Heaven you don’t just sit and watch the people being tormented, but that doesn’t mean you don’t know that it’s happening.

This leads me to three possible conclusions:
1.) Heaven is not perfect bliss, in fact it is terrible knowing how many people are suffering.
2.) God will “fix” me so I no longer care about other people.
3.) People who have issues with other people’s suffering don’t get into Heaven.

If there is a 4th option please let me know. (Please do NOT post “well, I dunno, but I imagine God has a plan.” While it may be true, that doesn’t actually get us anywhere).

There’s a few things that we do completely alone.

We are alone with our thoughts, our ideas, opinions and decisions. We shape our lives with these things that we do alone. Things we can’t blame others for. And things we want credit for.

God doesn’t strong arm hundreds of monks and nuns to live a cloistered, prayful and silent life, locked up in some monastery in the wilderness or the mountains.

They choose that themselves- alone. They choose to follow God’s will and the calling of His Grace…again- alone. Undistracted by anything else that will deviate them from God’s will and His grace. Because they choose to, some day, be with Him in heaven.

Alone we have a life of prayer and a life of the spirit, nurtured by the sacraments of Confession and Communion or…alone we choose a life of the body and a life of pleasure, greed, jealosy, envy, sloth, anger, hatred, gluttony, pride. And in doing so - alone - we accept no one getting in the way of our choices.

Alone we choose to deplete the grace in our soul to the point where we become strangers not only to God but to ourselves.

Alone we choose.

If you worry about your friend’s decisions and the path they are choosing alone…then don’t ask “what would Jesus do”…ask what YOU would do.

 

[LJH_80]

This was one thing I found to be interesting too. I always felt the way the Catholic Church does things indicated they were truly representing a specific being (God) and not beings (the individuals). ** I know you look at it as a bad quality** but I look at it as a very good one. Most faiths preach God is perfect (without change) and therefore timeless. If the Church who claims to be Christ’s Mystical Body was to change then God could not be considered God and their Church could not be considered His Mystical Body.

That’s where you’re wrong, for the most part. I don’t view it as necessarily a bad quality, in fact it’s why I came to these boards.

Because I like to speak in allegory, bear with me a moment.
If you look at any election (the current Republican primaries are an excellent example), you’ll find that people are hesitant to put forward an actual plan. This is because no plan is 100% perfect, and by actually committing to something, they open themselves up for criticism. This is why you’ll rarely see a politician say, “Well, we’re going to adjust column A of this chart by 3.82%, institute a gradual phasing out of the 3rd Committee’s resolution over the next 14 months, and then in phase 12…” Instead you hear things like “We’re going to save the economy and create jobs with freedom! We’re going to increase freedom until there’s justice and freedomy responsibility stuff!” When you attach yourself to specifics, you make yourself a target, but you also show your integrity.
I like that the Catholic Church has the spheres (synonym that as you will) to take a stance, and hold it. I don’t agree with their stance, but I do respect them for holding it.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There is only one logic.

Logic is logic, and it can be applied in all kinds of ways, honest . You don’t appear to realise that yours has failed, logically speaking, to absolutely eradicate the validity of all other forms of application. Popular support of it, and your own literally blank refusal to recognise that failure, change nothing

Gotta love that you use the word “dogma” in a derogatory fashion, and connect “dogma” to “superstition”. At least we can agree on something. If you don’t understand that science is anything but dogmatic then I really feel sorry for you.

Dogma is OK, so long as it is recognised for what it is - those who believe in scientism consistently fail to do so regarding their own, in my experience, apparently uniformly deluded into thinking it’s some kind of indefatigable absolute, rather than the just this ages’ greatest pretension…by the way! You appear to fail to register the difference between science and scientism…