How to answer these questions from a non Christian?

[mikekle]

.

This “problem” seems to be rooted in the idea that people who rejected God in life would not also reject him in death. Love is a mutual and cooperative relationship. God does not compel anyone to love him. Why should he force anyone who rejects him to live with him for all eternity?

It has often been said that nobody in hell is ever dragged there kicking and screaming that there has been some mistake. The people in hell WANT to be there, because they REJECT God and have NO desire to be in his presence.

That is not necessarily true, we are taught Gods love for us is ETERNAL, our lives on earth are not, and are very short compared to eternity, so why would our decision making be halted upon our deaths? Maybe there many people who, upon their death, decide they want to be with God…just because they are dead will prevent God from accepting them? that makes no sense if true, and if it is true, it would also PROVE Gods love for us is not eternal and only exists when we are alive on earth.

IMO, the OP makes good points in this thread. very hard to understand and make sense of this.

 

[MPat]

The problem is, lets say a person chooses Hell, JUST because he does not want to be with God, OK, that is understandable, if that person lived their life without going to mass, praying or seeking out any kind of relationship with God, so Hell would seem the logical destination for them, but why would torture and eternal suffering and pain come into it? When that person went thru their life on earth choosing to live it without God, they did not go thru torture or physical pain, so why would hell be any different…if it is JUST place removed from God? It seems to me, Hell would just be an extension of life in the real world without God in it, not sure how ‘gnashing of teeth’ and suffering horrible tortures got thrown into the mix.

You know, real life is not separated from God that much. For example, there is no “Catholic Answers” Forum in hell… And, if God is the source of all that is good, it follows that separation from Him might be expected to be uncomfortable. Just like “separation from air” is often found to be uncomfortable.

In fact, it is not even necessary to add “torture” to achieve that. Just imagine: the whole eternity and nothing to do (because the “supplier” of everything one needs to have fun has been told to stay away). Sounds like hell…? Well, what if it is…?

 

[DavidFilmer]

That is not necessarily true, we are taught Gods love for us is ETERNAL, our lives on earth are not, and are very short compared to eternity, so why would our decision making be halted upon our deaths? Maybe there many people who, upon their death, decide they want to be with God…just because they are dead will prevent God from accepting them? that makes no sense if true, and if it is true, it would also PROVE Gods love for us is not eternal and only exists when we are alive on earth.

OK, suppose I concede the point: a person in hell could “change his mind” and enter heaven and accept the God that he had previously rejected.

Maybe that’s true, and maybe it’s not. Hell is described as “eternal,” but there’s no reason to suppose that it is eternal to ONLY those who eternally choose to be there. There’s no absolute and **doctrinal **reason why a person in hell could not “change his mind.”

There are a LOT of philosophical reasons why this would be unlikely, but none (that I know of) that would absolutely preclude it.

So, suppose I agree that a person in hell could (theoretically) “change his mind” and accept God and enter heaven. What else would you object to? Because that seems to be pretty slim pickings.

 

[Jewel34]

JMJ3:

What would you do with a creation that refuses to do what you created it for?

The problem with your question is that we have no idea what we were created for. Some people assert certain things, but it is a typical case of the blind leading the unsighted. If the creator knows up-front that creature “X” will refuse to do his “part”, then the only logical solution is not to create “X”. Using his omniscience the creator could quickly “scan” all the possible creatures: A, B, C,… etc. and choose to create the one which will “fit” into the plan. If there is such a creature, then the creator will create it. If there is no such creature, then the original plan of the creator cannot be fulfilled.

Here is the explicit answer to your question: “I would definitely NOT send that creature into eternal torment.”

MPat:

For example, it does leave out the important part that demands that all that would be chosen freely by the creatures. That does complicate the matters…

Complicate for whom? For the almighty, omnipotent God? What could be an insurmountable problem for God? Only a logical impossibility, nothing else. And if the unspecified goal cannot be reached due to some logical impossibility, then it would be ridiculous for God to try to achieve it. Why would God attempt to do something that is logically impossible? If there is no logical impossibility, then there is no problem, there cannot be a “complication”.

MPat:

In other words, there are situations when collecting all possible information is a bad idea… Then a decision must be made based on incomplete information.

That is only true for us. There is no such limitation for God.

MPat:

That is a hypothetical: “Assuming that it is known that God exists etc.”. In it “you” do know quite a lot.

My hypothetical answer would be: “I would want to be with the God as you described, just to give him my piece of mind”. But I do not believe that God exists, so in this life I cannot “reject” him. Period. The problem lies with God, of course. He could have given me all the necessary information, so I could make a valid, meaningful choice. He did not, so my ignorance is “invincible”.

MPat:

I must have missed it… Or, perhaps, I didn’t notice you take it into account…

The point is that a punishment or a reward in the afterlife does not retroactively “undo” or “justify” the suffering here. Again a simple analogy: if a father does not protect his child from a foreseen injury, then giving a lollipop later will not “undo” the father’s prior negligence.

There is no excuse for the three problems delineated in the OP. Not even the best apologists can give a good explanation.

 

[mikekle]

You know, real life is not separated from God that much. For example, there is no “Catholic Answers” Forum in hell… And, if God is the source of all that is good, it follows that separation from Him might be expected to be uncomfortable. Just like “separation from air” is often found to be uncomfortable.

In fact, it is not even necessary to add “torture” to achieve that. Just imagine: the whole eternity and nothing to do (because the “supplier” of everything one needs to have fun has been told to stay away). Sounds like hell…? Well, what if it is…?

If that is true, then why arent Un-Godly people currently living, experiencing any kind of suffering or torture? IN fact, many of them seem to be having a great time. I know when I was a teenager and living without God in my life, I was VERY happy with my life at the time and was enjoying every minute of it, partying, going out with friends, different girls all the time, drinking and drugging, etc.

It cannot be that God is in their lives without them knowing it, as that would conflict with their free will.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The problem with your question is that we have no idea what we were created for.

This is a perspective not shared by all and which only faith answers. You were created to exist by God, and because of nothing other than His love for you. You cannot not exist but in the physical reality you know, in which case you too will see your non-existence in what you assumed was reality but was constricted to narrow confines by limited thinking. You are not flesh which might have a spirit, you are a spirit who happens to be in the flesh and in a period called time which in truth is a leaning experience and a very quick one.

To disagree with a specific point somewhere in the middle of the plot before the final curtain, is not to see the entire picture of the perfection of Gods love. I don’t think you realize how much God loves you. He not only created you to exist with Him should you desire to cooperate with His grace which precedes the air you breath, but He created a perfect Kingdom, offered you eternal life in the presence of His sanctifying grace, and by creating a perfect plan in which to implement it, namely each and every individual including you and me. In fact if I had to build a Kingdom and fill it with followers, I couldn’t think of a better way. Surely all would be there for the correct reason, in unity of cohesion, and in free will magnified. To slight the plan before the completion is about the same as saying you don’t like an Artists painting while it is only half complete. To see the complete painting resolves the question of why a specific shade or brush technique was implemented, and to see the executed plan completed is to then further comprehend its transmitted message.

 

[Jewel34]

GaryTaylor:

This is a perspective not shared by all and which only faith answers.

(Un)fortunately I have no “faith” – the kind of faith you speak of. The word “faith” is just as abused a word as “love”. They both have widely divergent meanings and quite frequently they are used in a confusing manner.

GaryTaylor:

You were created to exist by God, and because of nothing other than His love for you.

I know that this is what you believe, but you have no evidence for it. But, let’s accept it provisionally, and examine the details. If God wished to create us to enjoy the perfect happiness and bliss with him, then he could have (would have, should have!) created us directly into heaven. There is no reason to insert this “vale of tears”. There is no reason to “test” us, since he already knows the outcome of the test. There is no reason to create those who will fail the test. There is only one thing that God cannot do: “create a logically contradictory state of affairs”. A “selective” creation, where only the “saved” ones will be created is a logically possible scenario.

GaryTaylor:

He not only created you to exist with Him should you desire to cooperate with His grace which precedes the air you breath, but He created a perfect Kingdom, offered you eternal life in the presence of His sanctifying grace, and by creating a perfect plan in which to implement it, namely each and every individual including you and me.

I highlighted the problem. How can I desire to be with God, if I have no knowledge about it? I have no evidence about the details of what would be to be eternally with God. God “neglected” to give me the evidence of 1) his existence, 2) his plan, 3) the requirements I must fulfill and 4) the outcome. Now, mind you, as I have said before, I do NOT reject God. I do not accept what (equally ignorant) people say about God. Without intending to hurt anyone’s feelings or become disrespectful, I contend that only God can speak for God. No human, no collection of humans, no institute of humans can claim that God speaks through them.

GaryTaylor:

To slight the plan before the completion is about the same as saying you don’t like an Artists painting while it is only half complete.

So you say that I am not in the position to say criticisms, since I don’t see the whole picture. But you claim to be able to say praises (perfect plan… etc.) when you are exactly as ignorant as I am. That is not acceptable.

 

[JM3]

Originally Posted by JMJ3

I’m curious. Why do you keep changing my user name? Do you intend it as disrespect?

 

[Jewel34]

JM3:

I’m curious. Why do you keep changing my user name? Do you intend it as disrespect?

I apologize. I create my posts off-line, using Word, and so I simply type in the necessary formatting commands, instead of using the built-in , <url=>, and other features. It was an unintended typo. I was unaware of this mistake until now that you brought it to my attention. I will be more careful in the future. I am sorry about it.

 

[MPat]

The problem with your question is that we have no idea what we were created for. Some people assert certain things, but it is a typical case of the blind leading the unsighted. If the creator knows up-front that creature “X” will refuse to do his “part”, then the only logical solution is not to create “X”. Using his omniscience the creator could quickly “scan” all the possible creatures: A, B, C,… etc. and choose to create the one which will “fit” into the plan. If there is such a creature, then the creator will create it. If there is no such creature, then the original plan of the creator cannot be fulfilled.

Here is the explicit answer to your question: “I would definitely NOT send that creature into eternal torment.”

Yes, it is one of many possibilities to manipulate the nominally “free” creatures into something. In other words, you are asking: “Why doesn’t God create us free - but not really?”… Well, who would He cheat by that…?

Also, it assumes that removing some creatures would keep the others making the same choices - and that is not certain.

It also assumes that ending up in hell is worse than not being created at all. That might be so, but it is not certain. We do not know that much about hell.

Complicate for whom? For the almighty, omnipotent God? What could be an insurmountable problem for God? Only a logical impossibility, nothing else. And if the unspecified goal cannot be reached due to some logical impossibility, then it would be ridiculous for God to try to achieve it. Why would God attempt to do something that is logically impossible? If there is no logical impossibility, then there is no problem, there cannot be a “complication”.

That’s why I said that what you have offered is a goal function - not a goal nor a plan. It is being optimised with constraints (if you wish). And you keep pointing out “better solutions” that violate the constraints.

And “Complicate for whom?” - well, for me, for example. It does mean that I cannot “reverse engineer” God’s plan and explain how it is “disrupted” or “not disrupted”…

That is only true for us. There is no such limitation for God.

And that’s why I was asking you. Remember, at first I have “challenged” you to tell me if you’d like to spend the eternity with God. Then you refused to answer, explaining that you do not have complete information. That’s why I was pointing out that sometimes decisions must be made without complete information.

Anyway, now you did give an answer, thus that doesn’t matter any more.

My hypothetical answer would be: “I would want to be with the God as you described, just to give him my piece of mind”.

OK, that is an answer. It doesn’t look like a very serious answer (and thus it looks like it won’t lead anywhere), but at least it’s an answer.

But I do not believe that God exists, so in this life I cannot “reject” him. Period. The problem lies with God, of course. He could have given me all the necessary information, so I could make a valid, meaningful choice. He did not, so my ignorance is “invincible”.

If that is really the case, good for you. As far, as Catholic Church is concerned, “invincible ignorance” does excuse lack of belief. Though, of course, agreement that God exists is by no means the only important thing… And those other parts are harder without faith…

The point is that a punishment or a reward in the afterlife does not retroactively “undo” or “justify” the suffering here. Again a simple analogy: if a father does not protect his child from a foreseen injury, then giving a lollipop later will not “undo” the father’s prior negligence.

What does this answer have to do with anything? Do you remember how we got to this point…?

I have given you an explanation based on the question “Would you actually want to spend the eternity with God?”, showing that both “Yes.” and “No.” lead to conclusions that are not useful to your case. You answered that there is a different answer, based on not being in eternity. I repeated that the question was specifically about eternity. You answered with the claim that your answer covers that. And when I ask you how exactly does it do that, you answer with this…?

That had nothing to do with reward or punishment or “undoing” anything…

There is no excuse for the three problems delineated in the OP. Not even the best apologists can give a good explanation.

You know, repeating that again and again might feel good, but it doesn’t count as an argument…

 

[MPat]

If that is true, then why arent Un-Godly people currently living, experiencing any kind of suffering or torture? IN fact, many of them seem to be having a great time. I know when I was a teenager and living without God in my life, I was VERY happy with my life at the time and was enjoying every minute of it, partying, going out with friends, different girls all the time, drinking and drugging, etc.

It cannot be that God is in their lives without them knowing it, as that would conflict with their free will.

Well, I don’t see how that would violate the free will. Actually, if loss of the state of grace would instantly result in great suffering (the other alternative), that would seem to cause more obvious problems with free will (we would just form simple reflexes like Pavlov’s dogs).

 

[GaryTaylor]

(Un)fortunately I have no “faith” – the kind of faith you speak of. The word “faith” is just as abused a word as “love”. They both have widely divergent meanings and quite frequently they are used in a confusing manner.

Its something you’ll have to think about, you know love though not its depth for it is a mystery thus God, but you know this. The only confusion is the false interaction of word and concepts for love, such as lust. You know faith in the same way.

I know that this is what you believe, but you have no evidence for it. But, let’s accept it provisionally, and examine the details. If God wished to create us to enjoy the perfect happiness and bliss with him, then he could have (would have, should have!) created us directly into heaven. There is no reason to insert this “vale of tears”. There is no reason to “test” us, since he already knows the outcome of the test. There is no reason to create those who will fail the test. There is only one thing that God cannot do: “create a logically contradictory state of affairs”. A “selective” creation, where only the “saved” ones will be created is a logically possible scenario.

Man created his own evil and God allowed it to exist for free-will comes into play.

He did all of what you suggest. Its Biblical, Gods perfect plan in love thus His only Son who Lucifer in free-will refused to follow. Then God creates mankind.

“When God undertook in the beginning to create the world, for nothing that’s comes to be is without a cause, each of the things that would ever exist was presented to His mind. He saw what else would result when such a thing were produced; and if such a result were accomplished, what else would accompany; and what else would be the result even of this when it would come about. And so on to the conclusion of the sequence of events. He Knew what would be, without being altogether the cause of the coming to be of the things He knew would happen.” Origen on Genesis

I highlighted the problem. How can I desire to be with God, if I have no knowledge about it? I have no evidence about the details of what would be to be eternally with God. God “neglected” to give me the evidence of 1) his existence, 2) his plan, 3) the requirements I must fulfill and 4) the outcome. Now, mind you, as I have said before, I do NOT reject God. I do not accept what (equally ignorant) people say about God. Without intending to hurt anyone’s feelings or become disrespectful, I contend that only God can speak for God. No human, no collection of humans, no institute of humans can claim that God speaks through them.

God did speak for God through Jesus Christ, fact, and He said everything He had to say on earth. and He offered you the same communion given to Adam and Eve who had issues with free-will, as did Lucifer and his followers. You seem to miss you are the crown of creation. You seem to miss the free will part also.

You cannot find God till you seek Him always. God knows the desires of our heart, He is always looking into your heart to see if you desire Him. But you have no desire, perhaps your heart is elsewhere?

[So you say that I am not in the position to say criticisms, since I don’t see the whole picture. But you claim to be able to say praises (perfect plan… etc.) when you are exactly as ignorant as I am. That is not acceptable.

Your above point was unfairness thus an attribute other than God, because all are not perfect robots with no free-will. So why would we be exactly the same?

God doesn’t condemn people, they condemn themselves through there own actions and free-will. God desired all to be saved.

God loves you. You have to choose to love Him back, or there is no relationship. You have to play an active role.

 

[MPat]

I highlighted the problem. How can I desire to be with God, if I have no knowledge about it? I have no evidence about the details of what would be to be eternally with God. God “neglected” to give me the evidence of 1) his existence, 2) his plan, 3) the requirements I must fulfill and 4) the outcome.

You have no evidence at all…? All kinds of writings by saints and philosophers suddenly do not even count as weak or misleading evidence…?

Now, mind you, as I have said before, I do NOT reject God. I do not accept what (equally ignorant) people say about God. Without intending to hurt anyone’s feelings or become disrespectful, I contend that only God can speak for God. No human, no collection of humans, no institute of humans can claim that God speaks through them.

You know, that’s quite an assertion - and you do not give any argument to support it. We are not all equally ignorant when we talk about Mathematics, History, car repairs. Why would we have to be equally ignorant when we talk about God?

Actually, if you believe all of us are equally ignorant, why are you discussing with us anything? That would mean that you cannot tell us anything new and true, nor can we tell you anything new and true.

Also, that explains why you claim you have no evidence. You have a lot of evidence, but you just ruled it inadmissible and now you feel you can ignore it.

I wonder if you use the same approach while reading detective stories…?

 

[Jewel34]

MPat:

You have no evidence at all…? All kinds of writings by saints and philosophers suddenly do not even count as weak or misleading evidence…?

No, they don’t qualify as evidence. Those are all unsupported opinions.

MPat:

We are not all equally ignorant when we talk about Mathematics, History, car repairs.

Very true. But the experts have something tangible to offer over and beyond their opinion. They are experts if they are able to provide actual evidence for they claims.

MPat:

Why would we have to be equally ignorant when we talk about God?

I am always ready to reconsider. But you need to provide actual evidence, not just opinions. It is a fact that God does not talk to us any more. The church declared that the time for revelations is “over”. All you can do is to point to some ancient writs, which speak of a very few historically verified events and a truckload of scientific impossibilities. You are most welcome to believe all of them, but do not expect the rest of us to accept all of them uncritically. If you are ready to check in your critical skills into the cloak-room, that is your prerogative. But I am not ready to follow suit.

MPat:

Also, that explains why you claim you have no evidence. You have a lot of evidence, but you just ruled it inadmissible and now you feel you can ignore it.

I use the same measuring stick for all the claims. There is no special, more stringent requirement for religious claims. Hearsay evidence, without corroborating evidence is inadmissible – not just here, but in the court of law, too. That is all.

 

[MPat]

No, they don’t qualify as evidence. Those are all unsupported opinions.

All…? And how many such writings make up the sample upon which you base this claim…? That is, how many have you actually read…?

By the way, you should note that “unsupported opinions” is a stronger expression than merely “badly supported opinions”. To disprove your claim I can simply give “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas (as an example of what is at least a “supported opinion”) and Diary of St. Faustina Kowalska (as an example of what is at least supposed to be a witness report).

Very true. But the experts have something tangible to offer over and beyond their opinion. They are experts if they are able to provide actual evidence for they claims.

You did not claim that there are no experts. You said that everyone is “equally ignorant”. That’s a much stronger claim. Would you like to take it back, or would you like to support it…? Or is it just an example of “unsupported opinions”…?

I am always ready to reconsider. But you need to provide actual evidence, not just opinions. It is a fact that God does not talk to us any more. The church declared that the time for revelations is “over”. All you can do is to point to some ancient writs, which speak of a very few historically verified events and a truckload of scientific impossibilities. You are most welcome to believe all of them, but do not expect the rest of us to accept all of them uncritically. If you are ready to check in your critical skills into the cloak-room, that is your prerogative. But I am not ready to follow suit.

Um, it is the public revelation that is over. Private revelation still happens (I guess your investigation of Catholic doctrine leaves something to be desired…). For example, the Marian apparition in Fatima is an example of private revelation. And of evidence that cannot be simply declared to be “just an opinion”…

I use the same measuring stick for all the claims. There is no special, more stringent requirement for religious claims. Hearsay evidence, without corroborating evidence is inadmissible – not just here, but in the court of law, too. That is all.

Actually, it is only true for “courts of law” in countries with “Common law” legal system (USA, UK etc.) - presumably it is so to avoid problems with jury without legal training. In other countries hearsay is admissible. For example, Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hearsay&oldid=584275251) notes that in Sweden and Norway such evidence is taken into account.

Anyway, if you use that as “the same measuring stick for all the claims”, do you have a direct witness for, let’s say, Michelson-Morley experiment? That looks like a “measuring stick” that could undo much of science…

And, of course, it doesn’t address written documents, philosophical arguments, witness accounts etc.

 

[Jewel34]

MPat:

That is, how many have you actually read…?

How many “saints”, philosophers experienced God personally, basking in the eternal glory and happiness and came back to report it? When I see posts arguing about the specific features of heaven and hell, I feel rather amused. It is like blind people trying to argue about the beauty of picture which they never saw.

But this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I answered your question truthfully when you asked if I wanted to be with God. That was to show that I do not reject God. Therefore, if I would ever “land” in hell, it will not happen because I “rejected” God, and banged on the imaginary doors of hell, demanding admittance, and fighting my way to the first burning cauldron to be tortured there forever. No, my friend, people do not “choose” hell, they are “thrown” into hell.

That was the third topic of the OP, and there is no reason to consider this fate to be the sign of a “loving” father, who reluctantly allows his wayward son to have it “his way”, who would not “force” his son to endure the eternal happiness. It would be interesting to see a rational argument for hell. But I don’t think it will be forthcoming.

Of course, these days the description of hell has been changed. It is now the new, improved version of “mere separation” from God. The old version, so eloquently described by Rev. John Furniss The Sights of Hell is sort of out of fashion today, it is not politically correct any more.

The first paragraph is rather revealing:

Approbation

“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.”

William Meagher, Vicar General, Dublin, December 14, 1855.

Read this paragraph, written for the edification of children. Observe the great deal of “charm”.

You are going to see again the child about which you read in the Terrible Judgement, that it was condemned to hell. See! It is a pitiful sight. The little child is in this red hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out. See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor of the oven. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell – despair, desperate and horrible! The same law which is for others is also for children. If children, knowingly and willingly, break God’s commandments, they must also be punished like others. This child committed very bad mortal sins, knowing well the harm of what it was doing, and knowing that hell would be the punishment. God was very good to this child. Very likely God saw that this child would get worse and worse, and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished much more in hell. So God, in His mercy, called it out of the world in its early childhood.

When you asked me, if I read the “saint’s” books, was this in your mind? After all it is published on “saintsbooks.net”. I don’t know about you, but it sure gives me shivers!

 

[Jewel34]

MPat:

Anyway, if you use that as “the same measuring stick for all the claims”, do you have a direct witness for, let’s say, Michelson-Morley experiment? That looks like a “measuring stick” that could undo much of science…

Obviously you misunderstand the nature of the “measuring stick”. It is not needed that one should verify all the claims personally. It is good practice to rely on the testimonials of others, if for nothing else, but saving the time and effort, not to mention that not everyone has the necessary knowledge or is in the position to perform the act of verification (which can be a highly specialized process). But the “measuring stick” is not simply the reliance on testimonies of others.

In science, the “chain” of testimonials is finite. As you walk backwards from one authority to the previous one, eventually you will find someone who is able to do two things: 1) demonstrate the actual claim without referring back to some other authority, and 2) give you the instructions of how to verify the claim yourself. The usage of testimonials is just a convenient epistemological shortcut, and not an epistemological method itself. You don’t have to take anything on “faith”.

There is no similar process when it comes to the claims of religion. There is no “first” authority, who can demonstrate the validity of the claim, and who can give you the necessary instructions to perform the verification process yourself. The “authorities” are just as unable to demonstrate the claims as everyone else. It is “turtles all the way down”. You must take it on “faith”.

I hope you understand now that the seeming similarity between the two usages of testimonials is superficial at best. They are worlds apart.

Now this was a short sidetrack from the actual topic of the thread. But since you did not understand the nature of the measuring stick, I hope you learned from it. There is no need to reflect on it, unless you still have problems with understanding.

 

[MPat]

I answered your question truthfully when you asked if I wanted to be with God.

You might note that I didn’t say you were lying when you said that. I said you didn’t seem to be serious.

Speaking of being serious:

When you asked me, if I read the “saint’s” books, was this in your mind? After all it is published on “saintsbooks.net”.

No, if that was a saint, he would have had “St.” in front of his name, not just “Rev.” or “Fr.”… Now, if that part about “saintsbooks.net” was meant to be a joke, then: 1) it was not exactly a good joke, 2) it could have used a smile…

Anyway, if you are not interested in a serious discussion, I think I’ll stand aside…

 

[Jewel34]

MPat:

You might note that I didn’t say you were lying when you said that. I said you didn’t seem to be serious.

Well, I was serious. And I also described why the idea of saying that “someone chose” hell is such a ludicrous idea. No one “chooses” to be tortured forever. Such irrational arguments are an impediment to meaningful discussions.

MPat:

Now, if that part about “saintsbooks.net” was meant to be a joke.

Did you click on the link? If you did, you would have seen that it is a serious site.

MPat:

Anyway, if you are not interested in a serious discussion, I think I’ll stand aside…

Since I am only interested in serious discussions, I have no objection to your decision to stand aside. Thank you for your posts.

 

[mikekle]

How many “saints”, philosophers experienced God personally, basking in the eternal glory and happiness and came back to report it? When I see posts arguing about the specific features of heaven and hell, I feel rather amused. It is like blind people trying to argue about the beauty of picture which they never saw.

But this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I answered your question truthfully when you asked if I wanted to be with God. That was to show that I do not reject God. Therefore, if I would ever “land” in hell, it will not happen because I “rejected” God, and banged on the imaginary doors of hell, demanding admittance, and fighting my way to the first burning cauldron to be tortured there forever. No, my friend, people do not “choose” hell, they are “thrown” into hell.

That was the third topic of the OP, and there is no reason to consider this fate to be the sign of a “loving” father, who reluctantly allows his wayward son to have it “his way”, who would not “force” his son to endure the eternal happiness. It would be interesting to see a rational argument for hell. But I don’t think it will be forthcoming.

Of course, these days the description of hell has been changed. It is now the new, improved version of “mere separation” from God. The old version, so eloquently described by Rev. John Furniss The Sights of Hell is sort of out of fashion today, it is not politically correct any more.

The first paragraph is rather revealing:

Read this paragraph, written for the edification of children. Observe the great deal of “charm”.

When you asked me, if I read the “saint’s” books, was this in your mind? After all it is published on “saintsbooks.net”. I don’t know about you, but it sure gives me shivers!

TO me, this sounds like someones attempt to keep young children in line and literally scare them into being good people and obeying all the laws/rules wherever they go. Some people also say this is the entire purpose of religion, to scare people into submission, so they will be more likely to obey societies laws, moral laws, etc. think about it, if our society knew for a fact, there was NO God and nothing was waiting for us in the after life, what reason would people have to obey laws, be generally good to others, contribute to society, etc? It would make perfect sense to ‘come up with’ a story to tell people when they are young, that gives them a frightening image of someone who does not obey laws and follow rules, of course they are going to live their lives obeying (for the most part).

If there was no consequences in the afterlife, then I believe our society would be terrible, people would be killing others at the drop of a hat, stealing anything they wanted, not bother working, killing for the fun of it, etc, it would be total anarchy, so people do need something to hold on to, or some belief about the afterlife and how our lives depend on how our individual afterlives will be.

Im not saying I believe this, but I can see where they are coming from concerning this.