God allows us to choose.I think the original question gets to the very heart of a very mysterious aspect about God and another question!
It would seem that God respect human freedom so much that he allows humans to choose hell. Wouldn’t a more “humane” solution say that it would be better if that person never existed at all, or rather, if that person merely just ceased to exist???
It would seem that within the mystery of God, allowing a human to exist in Hell is better, or the lesser of two evils, than allowing the person not to exist at all.
This seems a great and strange mystery indeed!!!
With all due respect, the mystery card is often pulled when no acceptable answer can be found. I do not mean it is a trick, people sincerely believe it. Also I do not mean it is not philosophically valid. If there is a God it is reasonable to assume that his intellect is superior to others and in places beyond their understanding. But the mystery solution is preferred to the unpalatable “God is the author of evil” Even Calvinists with their doctrine of double predestination and who have less room to maneuver than Catholics refuse to contemplate the possibility that they may be dealing with an evil God or at least indifferent God.I think the original question gets to the very heart of a very mysterious aspect about God and another question!
It would seem that God respect human freedom so much that he allows humans to choose hell. Wouldn’t a more “humane” solution say that it would be better if that person never existed at all, or rather, if that person merely just ceased to exist???
It would seem that within the mystery of God, allowing a human to exist in Hell is better, or the lesser of two evils, than allowing the person not to exist at all.
This seems a great and strange mystery indeed!!!
He even challenged me to prove that the church teaches that (small) children do not have free will and I had to quote from Benedictus Deus. I was really surprised he did not know that.
I am still waiting for this answer.I must say I am surprised at the behavior attributed to me.
Please provide the specific quotes pertaining to your statement above.
Where exactly is this?The book of Exodus has no Satan in it. God does all the tempting, Pharoah repents and then God hardens his heart to commit a moral evil so that his glory will be manifest. So I think the God is the author of evil has some support in the Old Testament if not in the New Testament.
Well, maybe. These verses do not directly mention hell.However, I do not think the mystery card can be pulled here. It is quite clear that hell is the worst possible state. Mark 9:42-50 . It is clear that one should do everything in one’s power to avoid it. In fact there is one passage were Jesus says it is better never to be born,
Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:21
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:20-22
So these verses make it clear that it is better not to be born than to go to hell.
That’s mostly right. But the emphasis here should be not just on the “better,” but on the “better for him.” That makes a big difference.However, I do not think the mystery card can be pulled here. It is quite clear that hell is the worst possible state. Mark 9:42-50 . It is clear that one should do everything in one’s power to avoid it. In fact there is one passage were Jesus says it is better never to be born,
Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:21
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:20-22
So these verses make it clear that it is better not to be born than to go to hell. One can’t argue that it is a divine mystery that God sees it better for people to have free will and go to hell than never be born with out contradicting these gospel passages. Ecclesiastes 4:2-4 also says it is better never to be born than to live and die.
Then there is the less palatable option that God is the author of evil. There seems to be some biblical support for this in the Old Testament.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Isaiah 45-7.
Clearly we do not believe that God is the author of moral evil, so your “less palatable option” obviously begs the question insofar as you assume that He is. Please note: you have never given any argument to show that hell is morally evil. Your implicit assumption that it is is completely unacceptable. Hell is morally good, it is an embodiment of divine justice (which inevitably and with good reason is a little ‘mysterious’ for us, as Guardian pointed out).Some people try to get around this verse by saying that God is the author of natural disasters and not moral evil. This is a sort of double think.
You have my apologies. It was another subscriber who was ignorant of this fact. I confused the two of you.I am still waiting for this answer.
I do not believe what is being ascribed to me is the case and would like some clarification here.
If clarification cannot be provided perhaps an apology is in order.
I have already quoted these verses on this thread. I refer you to my message #71. Basically Pharoagh acknowledges his sins and begs for forgiveness. He is forgiven, God takes away the plague then God hardens Pharoah’s heart again.Where exactly is this?
I do not recall pharoah repenting. Please provide a few verses to work with here.
That’s a possibility but not a very plausible one. The quote makes it clear that there is something worse than not been born. Now if this something is better than hell , my argument stands. This is simple logic. If it is better to not have been born and whipped three times (not hell), then it is better to not to be born than to be whipped 6 times (hell). Your hope lies in showing that there is something worse than hellWell, maybe. These verses do not directly mention hell.
So it is within the realm of possibility that there is something else going on then just hell.
Without some more background on these, I am not certain we can claim these verses make it clear that it is better not to be born than to go to hell.
Well I say that there is support in the Old testament that God is the author of evil (and good) and I say that the New Testament rejects the evil aspect. One does not have to demonstrate that hell is immoral. One could but it is unnecessary. One just has to show that it is unnecessary or unacceptable. The argument for this is simply that God with foreknowledge could have prevented this. I have , however, made some arguments from a moral perspective in previous messages on this thread…That’s mostly right. But the emphasis here should be not just on the “better,” but on the “better for him.” That makes a big difference.
Clearly we do not believe that God is the author of moral evil, so your “less palatable option” obviously begs the question insofar as you assume that He is. Please note: you have never given any argument to show that hell is morally evil. Your implicit assumption that it is is completely unacceptable. Hell is morally good, it is an embodiment of divine justice (which inevitably and with good reason is a little ‘mysterious’ for us, as Guardian pointed out).
The thread you are seeing and the thread I am seeing are apparently not the same thing.I have already quoted these verses on this thread. I refer you to my message #71. Basically Pharoagh acknowledges his sins and begs for forgiveness. He is forgiven, God takes away the plague then God hardens Pharoah’s heart again.
Why would the onus be upon me for an assertion* you* made?That’s a possibility but not a very plausible one.
…
The onus is on you to show that Jesus could have meant anything other than hell which is worse than suffering for all eternity and being apart from God for all eternity. I await your response witth interest.
I agree.
- I have argued that man does not really have free will. He is a slave to sin as St Paul says or again as St Paul says that he does the very things he chooses (with his mind) not to do. This is unjust to punish someone for that which he is not culpable.
Not quite.
- I have pointed out, also on this thread, that God sends people to hell for the very things he also does. So there is an element of hypocracy here. “Do what I say and not what I do” (God kills people and little children too).
He did.I have also argued that it limits Gods power that he cannot find a way of communicating the truth and the way to the hell bound…
Perhaps. But as CS Lewis said, “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.”You could also ask what purpose such justice serves as those in hell can never be saved. if one takes the Biblical verses that people are sent to hell rather than the modern interpretation that man volunteers to stay there then the action of sending one to hell can be seen as vindictive. It serves no pleasure other than to please God and be a warning to others but it does not benefit those in hell. It is torture for the sake of torture.
Again, I will just point out that you are simply begging the question here. Hell is morally good. It is torture for the sake of justice, which is a moral good. You have failed to respond to this point and instead have simply begged the question by asserting that it is not true.It serves no pleasure other than to please God and be a warning to others but it does not benefit those in hell. It is torture for the sake of torture.
I already tried to address some of your issues here and I believe you failed to respond. I’ll re-post:
- I have argued that man does not really have free will. He is a slave to sin as St Paul says or again as St Paul says that he does the very things he chooses (with his mind) not to do. This is unjust to punish someone for that which he is not culpable.
- I have pointed out, also on this thread, that God sends people to hell for the very things he also does. So there is an element of hypocracy here. “Do what I say and not what I do” (God kills people and little children too).
No it is not true that I have simply stated that it is not true.I have stated that eternal torture cannot be justified because it is of no benefit to the tortured.. That, sir, is giving a reason and not mere denial.Let me expand. One is not usually called upon to demonstrate that torture is immoral. Rather one is called upon to prove that it is moral. As torture causes suffering one has to justify it. One has to show what good comes out of that suffering. You may allow your child to be innoculated because the health benefits outweigh the temporary pain but if it was found that the innoculation caused more harm than benefit then the suffering is not justified. One does not have to prove that suffering is immoral!!!Again, I will just point out that you are simply begging the question here. Hell is morally good. It is torture for the sake of justice, which is a moral good. You have failed to respond to this point and instead have simply begged the question by asserting that it is not true.
I am not intentionally avoiding your responses. I am replying to a lot of people and occasionally I miss responses. I also do not always have time to reply to all of the points made. I also put a lot of work into my replies. I tend to quote sources except where I expect them to be common knowledge. So I do my best to be accurate. I also do not usually comment on responses which the person should know that I agree with i.e that killing is not always wrong or that I believe have no relevance to the debate i.e that God does not really have two hands.I already tried to address some of your issues here and I believe you failed to respond. I’ll re-post:
As to the general point, full knowledge and full capacity are not [absolutely] independent [although you are right: they are distinct]. Right? And a lack of either does not necessarily render an act guiltless. The state of lacking either one may be the result of a guilty act (e.g., respectively, skipping school or getting drunk). Would you dispute that there is such a thing as wilful ignorance? Would you assert that gross negligence is always innocent? - and therefore not really ‘gross negligence’??]
To your point 2, do you know the song “He’s got the whole world in His hands”? Two points for you to think about: 1) What the song claims is *true *(so we believe). 2) God doesn’t really have hands, so he doesn’t really have the whole world in his hands… Do you have a problem understanding that?
Also please consider this: killing as such is not wrong; and this is true even when we are thinking only about the morality of human acts. There is no hypocrisy involved in pointing this out.
Doesn’t that assume the torture is not a self inflicted?No it is not true that I have simply stated that it is not true.I have stated that eternal torture cannot be justified because it is of no benefit to the tortured.. That, sir, is giving a reason and not mere denial.Let me expand. One is not usually called upon to demonstrate that torture is immoral. Rather one is called upon to prove that it is moral. As torture causes suffering one has to justify it. One has to show what good comes out of that suffering.