Is eternal suffering pointless?

[pocaracas]

Ummm…*you’re *the one who demands certainty.

Catholicism asserts that we have firm confidence in the truths professed by those we trust. Not 100% certainty.

We don’t need no stinkin’ certainty.

We just have the moral assurance that God has revealed what we need to know in order to know Him.

We’re not aware of anything that Catholicism professes that’s false, but we’re not thereby acquitted…paraphrasing St. Paul.

Precisely… If no assurances of certainty are available, better not stick with any belief system…

####################

Huh?

Are you confusing me with someone else, poca?

When have I defined the unknown, the unknowable, and how empty space and nothing are 2 different things?

When you agreed with tony… but hey… I’m ok if that’s not what you meant with that agreement.

Huh?
Don’t know what this means. Can you please 'splain?

It means simply that every god ever worshiped, ever believed by mankind has exactly the same level of evidence for its existence - nada, niente, zip, zero, zilch.

 

[Verdandi]

Oh, geez…facepalm

Not even the Catholic Church has taken on that authority to say who’s destined for eternal perdition.

That’s above her paygrade.

And it’s above your paygrade for certain.

I fear I must question this, how does one explain the rite of Bell, Book and Candle?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

That looks like a pretty firm proclamation that someone is in hell, especially since this has been done to corpses.

 

[PRmerger]

Wow! We do???

Yes, sir.

Where and when?

This question calls to mind the dwarfs in CS Lewis’ The Last Battle.
mobilenovel.net/mobile/novels/chapter-thirteen-75/page/0/3

“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid Dwarfs,” said Lucy. “Can’t you see? Look up! Look round! Can’t you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can’t you see me?”

“How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”

“But I can see you,” said Lucy. “I’ll prove I can see you. You’ve got a pipe in your mouth.”

“Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that,” said Diggle.

“Oh the poor things! This is dreadful,” said Lucy. Then she had an idea. She stopped and picked some wild violets. “Listen, Dwarf,” she said. “Even if your eyes are wrong, perhaps your nose is all right: can you smell that?” She leaned across and held the fresh, damp flowers to Diggle’s ugly nose. But she had to jump back quickly in order to avoid a blow from his hard little fist.

“None of that!” he shouted. “How dare you! What do you mean by shoving a lot of filthy stable-litter in my face? There was a thistle in it too. It’s like your sauce! And who are you anyway?”

Oh, the poor, stupid dwarfs who are in the middle of paradise and are insistent upon the fact that they are in a fetid, dark stable.

What can we do except shrug in pity at the dwarfs, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

I fear I must question this, how does one explain the rite of Bell, Book and Candle?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle

Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive him and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

That looks like a pretty firm proclamation that someone is in hell, especially since this has been done to corpses.

No, Verdandi. You’ve been duped into believing some nonsense from some uninformed anti-Catholic .

This ritual did not do anything to a Christian’s soul.

As Jimmy Akin says: It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.
jimmyakin.com/2011/06/are-you-anathema-how-about-your-protestant-friend.html

 

[Verdandi]

No, Verdandi. You’ve been duped into believing some nonsense from some uninformed anti-Catholic .

This ritual did not do anything to a Christian’s soul.

As Jimmy Akin says: It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.
jimmyakin.com/2011/06/are-you-anathema-how-about-your-protestant-friend.html

I agree this ritual didn’t do anything to anyone’s soul, although for entirely different reasons to you admittedly. I don’t see why this is anti Catholic, as it was done to several Protestants during the reformation along with Cathars and other assorted “heretics” during the previous centuries before that.

Popes have even done it to one another, during the Cadaver synod the Pope declared his predecessor to be in hell.

If someone can be anathematised, they have been earmarked as going to hell; the Church has diagnosed that this person is hellbound at the very minimum even if it doesn’t formally proclaim the power to send someone there as it has at other times.

To be able to proclaim an anathema, at the very very least this means the Catholic Church can work out who is going to hell and who is there. That’s not even counting a long list of Catholic saints and mystics who have been approved by the Church who have claimed to have seen people in hell.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Oh, the poor, stupid dwarfs who are in the middle of paradise and are insistent upon the fact that they are in a fetid, dark stable.

Sorry, I am not interested in fairy tales. I am interested in hard evidence. What evidence can you show that God “loves” us, here and now? Last time I checked, “love” was supposed manifest itself in actions.

Just show us how explicitly causing and/or passively allowing pain, suffering, misery, torture, kidnapping, raping are supposed to point to God’s “love” for us. Because I am under the impression that “love” is kind and helpful. That a loving person comes to the rescue of a victim; feeds the starving; heals the sick.

Don’t try to bring up the “eternal happiness” or John square root of ten (3.16). You said “Here, in our world, we all feel God’s love in so many aspects of our life.” So stick to your original proposition.

Of course I do not really expect you to give a meaningful answer. But I am ready to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[PRmerger]

If someone can be anathematised, they have been earmarked as going to hell; the Church has diagnosed that this person is hellbound at the very minimum even if it doesn’t formally proclaim the power to send someone there as it has at other times.

Nope, Verdandi.

The Church has never condemned anyone to hell.

She simply doesn’t have that power.

And she knows she doesn’t have that power.

When someone is anathemized it means that they have been formally separated from the Body of Christ. But that is NOT the same thing as saying they have been condemned to hell.

That is above the Church’s paygrade.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I am not interested in fairy tales.

That’s too bad.

I am bemused by folks who are so fundamentalist in their thinking.

“Sorry, but I’m not interested in learning another language”.
“Sorry, but I’m not interested in the internet”.
“Sorry, but I’m not interested in traveling to Paris”.
“Sorry but I’m not interested in eating anything except baked potatoes and meatloaf”.

You can certainly live your life without trying sushi, bechamel sauce, bananas, avocados, sriracha…but we do pity you and your very plain diet.

Fairy tales incite great wonder, joy, and truth.

In fact, I often cite the Emperor’s New Clothes here on the forums, as it’s often a great metaphor for blind people walking around buck nekkid.

I am interested in hard evidence. What evidence can you show that God “loves” us, here and now? Last time I checked, “love” was supposed manifest itself in actions.

How 'bout this?
http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/passion.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1300220839779

Because I am under the impression that “love” is kind and helpful.

Oh, really?

So you you are an anti-vaxxer?

As a father you’ve never had to hold your child down to give him medicine?

You don’t vaccinate your children because it’s not kind to inflict pain upon them, esp when they can’t decide for themselves if they want to be vaccinated?

(And, please try to think in the abstract if you’re not a father. Don’t even try to divert with, “Well, I’m a 22 yr old who’s had a vasectomy so I’m not a father nor will I ever be a father.” Or “I’m a woman, so I can’t be a father.” Or “I don’t have a son who’s ever needed medicine.” Please, please, please show us you can understand the analogy.)

 

[pocaracas]

Curious…
Tony goes for lady chance.
PR goes for the vaccines.

I wonder what else is out there?..

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Fairy tales incite great wonder, joy, and truth.

Reality incites far greater wonder. Stick to reality. Of course I like fiction, but NOT a philosophy forum.

How 'bout this?

I am willing to listen. HOW does the cross (and what it implies) help the hungry, the sick, the tortured HERE and NOW? Does it feed the hungry? Does it heal the sick? Does it protect the tortured ones? It was you who asserted that we can experience God’s love HERE and NOW - not sometime after we are dead and buried. So get your trump cards on the table - if you have any. I am calling your bluff.

You don’t vaccinate your children because it’s not kind to inflict pain upon them, esp when they can’t decide for themselves if they want to be vaccinated?

Show me how the rape, torture and murder is in the best interest of the victim? I am not a child with limited understanding and I am willing to listen. If you are so smart and knowledgeable, and I am so ignorant, then enlighten me. It is possible that you are privy to some information, which is hidden from me. So it would be “charitable” to share that information with the “ignorant” ones, who specifically ask for it. But remember the old TV series: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

As I said, I would be very pleasantly surprised to get a direct answer. But all you give is evasion.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Tony goes for lady chance.
PR goes for the vaccines.

You got that right. The Lord and Lady of evasions.

Here comes some prediction. PR will resort to animated GIF’s instead of actual arguments. Tony will chain-link some requests of his, which you already answered, and append “No response!” (observe the exclamation point, his favorite punctuation mark). When you refuse to be “prodded” into entertaining his posts, eventually he will scream: “Lack of response indicates assent or impotent dissent!”. They are so very predictable. But definitely entertaining.

 

[PRmerger]

You got that right. The Lord and Lady of evasions.

Here comes some prediction. PR will resort to animated GIF’s instead of actual arguments. Tony will chain-link some requests of his, which you already answered, and append “No response!” (observe the exclamation point, his favorite punctuation mark). When you refuse to be “prodded” into entertaining his posts, eventually he will scream: “Lack of response indicates assent or impotent dissent!”. They are so very predictable. But definitely entertaining.

Could you please address the question?

Are you against vaccinating your children because you want to love them, and love is only “kind and helpful”?

 

[PRmerger]

Reality incites far greater wonder. Stick to reality. Of course I like fiction, but NOT a philosophy forum.

What an odd thing to say.

Fairy tales, references to Narnia, CS Lewis, dwarfs who are in the middle of paradise yet stupidly claim to be in a stinkin’ stable, have great value in a philosophy forum.

Now, if we were on a Science forum, then I suppose you may have a point.

But did you forget you were talking philosophy?

Incidentally, don’t you find it rather weird that you can demand “hard” scientific evidence on a philosophy forum but object to CS Lewis?

Why the double standard? “I get to demand “hard evidence” in a philosophy forum but you can’t bring fairy tales into a philosophy forum!”

Why not use the Catholic paradigm and say: we use every bit of knowledge we can, (and we rejoice in it!), to apprehend the truth!

So we Catholics can engage in intellectual pursuits using science, fairy tales, CS Lewis, philosophy, meatloaf, turnips, and Latin.

We don’t demand some peculiar, “I will only respond to things that rhyme” or “I think that anything you type using your left hand is sinister so I won’t address it” or “I won’t address analogies that deal with Emperors”.

We leave that for the fundamentalists.

 

[arte]

Beats me. Makes no sense at all. Even to a believer…

Many thanks for your objective (name removed by moderator)ut. It definitely makes no sense at all to me and many other believers. For me God is love and love trumps anything else.

 

[arte]

This is certainly not true.

We have the model of our own world here to prove that your proposal is false.

Here, in our world, we all feel God’s love in so many aspects of our life…yet we choose to sin anyway and turn away from it.

Even when we’ve experienced God’s love.

You can not say that it is certainly not true based upon “we all feel God’s love in so many aspects of our life…yet we choose to sin anyway and turn away from it”. Non believers have never felt God’s love otherwise they wouldn’t be non believers. Believers may say that they feel God’s love but do they really feel it? I’m also not sure that all believers would say that they have felt or feel God’s love. It is more realistic to say that all people would definitely feel God’s love if they were to meet Him “face to face” in the afterlife.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Could you please address the question?

Are you against vaccinating your children because you want to love them, and love is only “kind and helpful”?

Vaccination IS kind and helpful. Also it is painless, if done expertly. Of course I am aware that wish to make an analogy. The vaccination is beneficial, but the child does not (and cannot) understand it. You insinuate that the rape and torture are somehow also beneficial for the victim, but she is too stupid and/or ignorant to comprehend it. If only she would be privy to the full picture, she would gladly submit to be gang raped, tortured and killed. Of course in that case it would not be “rape” any more, because it would be consensual.

Now, please answer MY question: “How is it in the best interest of Jane Doe to be kidnapped, raped and murdered?”. And be specific about it.

Fairy tales, references to Narnia, CS Lewis, dwarfs who are in the middle of paradise yet stupidly claim to be in a stinkin’ stable, have great value in a philosophy forum.

No, they don’t when the question is specific. You were the one who made a very specific claim that EVERYONE feels the love of God, IN THIS EXISTENCE. All I am doing is demand evidence for it, especially in the case of a rape and murder, HOW are those in the best interest of the victim?

But did you forget you were talking philosophy?

You don’t. You just evade the direct questions. And present those dumb GIFs. As predicted.

Why not use the Catholic paradigm and say: we use every bit of knowledge we can, (and we rejoice in it!), to apprehend the truth!

Excellent. Now bring forth that “every bit of knowledge” and show me how is it in the best interest of the victim, and does that best interest reflect God’s love? Again, I am here to learn and I am also calling your bluff.

I can predict that IF you are intellectually honest, you will say: “well we have absolutely no evidence for God’s love, but we have faith and we trust God, and that trust is sufficient for us to declare that black is white, white is black, that evil is good and good is evil.” Is that the Catholic “paradigm” you speak of?

 

[PRmerger]

Vaccination IS kind and helpful.

Bingoooo!!!



I know that vaccination is “kind and helpful”. You know that. But your 5 yr old child…not so much. (And please note: you do not need to tell me, “I don’t have a 5 yr old child. I had my tubes* tied years ago.” Please continue this abstract thinking.)

No matter what explanation you offer, he’s not going to accept it. He just thinks you’re a Big Meanie. (Or “she”. Use whatever gender you prefer).

Now…try to extrapolate that to you.

God could offer an explanation for the pain and suffering you’ve experienced, but you’re not going to accept it.

You just think God is a Big Meanie.

But you can see how sometimes Love isn’t “kind and helpful.”

Or, you can see how what appears to be unkind and unhelpful actions are really “kind and helpful”.

QED

Also it is painless, if done expertly

LOL! This is gaga lala nonsense.

This ^^, I can’t even.

“You must be really good at giving shots because this didn’t even hurt!” is sooooo rooted in old wives tale fantasy.

There is no evidence that a person who gives a shot and it happens to be “painless” is better at doing so than another person.

Even this little guy clearly felt pain. He just was distracted by the provider. And, I guarantee you that this wouldn’t work 30 minutes later. One time is all that provider would get.

youtube.com/watch?v=5rvr2grgE-Q

And…even if one shot happens to be “painless”, there’s NEVER a time when the other 5 shots the child is getting that day don’t hurt either.

---

*Or if you’ve had a hysterectomy, no need to tell me. Same if you don’t have female anatomy.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If this thread follows the pattern of others, it will soon be closed by a moderator and drift off into obscurity. Before that happens, I would just like to point out that the “eternal hell” apologists have failed spectacularly in this thread.

“Endless hell” is the festering sore in the heart of the supposed “good news,” and an absolute stumbling block to belief for anyone who is unwilling to trade their compassion for fellow human beings and their common sense for a chance to escape the endless hell in which they have no belief.

Unfortunately though, the festering sore is an outgrowth of an underlying disease, in my view. If one were to remove the threat of endless hell from Christianity, the message of “salvation” becomes unintelligible. Christianity itself would have to be radically altered in order to be even minimally coherent if there is no “eternal hell.”

So, the “eternal hell” apologist has a heavy burden to shoulder. You must demonstrate that God is the perfection of all things, and yet some of his children will experience endless torment. You have failed here in this thread. Don’t get me wrong, many here have skillfully attempted to distract, evade, or shift the question. But, no one has successfully answered the title of this thread with a “no” of any sort of reasonable qualification. The obvious answer is “yes.” If the answer is “yes” then God desires endless suffering for its own sake, and that would make God profoundly evil. That can’t be right.

It isn’t only our atheist or agnostic friends who will acknowledge this. No one has brought forth a good reason to suppose “endless hell” has any kind of “point” whatsoever. The prosecution rests, and the defense is found wanting.

Honestly, I sympathize with the atheist or agnostic viewpoint. Who can intellectually tolerate the messages of Christianity? A man is God? God is bread? God is one but also three? Vicarious human-sacrifice atonement? Satan and an army of demons? All this horrific evil in the world will continue forever for most of humanity in hell and yet God is “all-good” and also the perfection of beauty? :whacky:

I would absolutely be an agnostic myself if I didn’t retain my habit of reading scripture everyday (and if Kant’s moral argument and Aquinas’ argument from contingency weren’t so convincing to me). In my view, Aquinas and Kant prove that there is a single, personal God. To me, the Tanakh speaks about this God. Maimonides talks about this God. To me, the continuous survival and success of the Jews, despite their history, is a miracle. And so, I believe. I don’t need a “carrot or a stick,” it just makes sense to me.

And with that, I’m done. Thank you to all of those who have helped me in this thread and on this forum over the last several months. I needed this to be ready to move on, I can see this now. I’m sure the moderators are eager to shut this down and let it leave the front page of this message board. I won’t bother you all again, God willing. Best wishes to you, sh-lom.

 

[davidv]

If this thread follows the pattern of others, it will soon be closed by a moderator and drift off into obscurity. Before that happens, I would just like to point out that the “eternal hell” apologists have failed spectacularly in this thread.

“Endless hell” is the festering sore in the heart of the supposed “good news,” and an absolute stumbling block to belief for anyone who is unwilling to trade their compassion for fellow human beings and their common sense for a chance to escape the endless hell in which they have no belief.

Unfortunately though, the festering sore is an outgrowth of an underlying disease, in my view. If one were to remove the threat of endless hell from Christianity, the message of “salvation” becomes unintelligible. Christianity itself would have to be radically altered in order to be even minimally coherent if there is no “eternal hell.”

So, the “eternal hell” apologist has a heavy burden to shoulder. You must demonstrate that God is the perfection of all things, and yet some of his children will experience endless torment. You have failed here in this thread. Don’t get me wrong, many here have skillfully attempted to distract, evade, or shift the question. But, no one has successfully answered the title of this thread with a “no” of any sort of reasonable qualification. The obvious answer is “yes.” If the answer is “yes” then God desires endless suffering for its own sake, and that would make God profoundly evil. That can’t be right.

It isn’t only our atheist or agnostic friends who will acknowledge this. No one has brought forth a good reason to suppose “endless hell” has any kind of “point” whatsoever. The prosecution rests, and the defense is found wanting.

Honestly, I sympathize with the atheist or agnostic viewpoint. Who can intellectually tolerate the messages of Christianity? A man is God? God is bread? God is one but also three? Vicarious human-sacrifice atonement? Satan and an army of demons? All this horrific evil in the world will continue forever for most of humanity in hell and yet God is “all-good” and also the perfection of beauty? :whacky:

I would absolutely be an agnostic myself if I didn’t retain my habit of reading scripture everyday (and if Kant’s moral argument and Aquinas’ argument from contingency weren’t so convincing to me). In my view, Aquinas and Kant prove that there is a single, personal God. To me, the Tanakh speaks about this God. Maimonides talks about this God. To me, the continuous survival and success of the Jews, despite their history, is a miracle. And so, I believe. I don’t need a “carrot or a stick,” it just makes sense to me.

And with that, I’m done. Thank you to all of those who have helped me in this thread and on this forum over the last several months. I needed this to be ready to move on, I can see this now. I’m sure the moderators are eager to shut this down and let it leave the front page of this message board. I won’t bother you all again, God willing. Best wishes to you, sh-lom.

One persons failure to accept an argument does not mean the argument fails miserably. Hell is not at the heart of the Good News, it is the failure to abide by it. Any who wants to attain eternal life in heaven has nothing to fear from an eternal hell.

 

[Verdandi]

One persons failure to accept an argument does not mean the argument fails miserably. Hell is not at the heart of the Good News, it is the failure to abide by it. Any who wants to attain eternal life in heaven has nothing to fear from an eternal hell.

Rather like anyone who wasn’t Jewish, disabled, gay, Roma, Polish or a Jehova’s Witness had nothing to fear from the Nazis in the late 1930’s?

I’m not comparing your God to the Nazis, let me just make that very clear.

I think anyone with any degree of empathy or respect for humanity should have some very deep concerns about an entity that hands out infinite punishments so awful they defy comprehension for finite deeds.

Murder is bad, but considering Catholics believe that murder does not end that persons existence it’s not as terrible a tragedy in your mind as it would be in the mind of an Atheist who believes that that person has been utterly destroyed and is gone forever. With that in mind how can murder deserve a punishment that never ends when in effect no lasting harm was done and in no way contributes to the reformation of the character?

It’s pointless, and merely serves as a display of gratuitous cruelty with no purpose other than to torture someone for the sake of it. I’m going to take the Catholic position that your deity doesn’t revel in the suffering of the damned (then the sentence of hell really would make sense) so what purpose does it serve? It can’t be a very good warning, since the Virgin at Fatima said most of humanity was still going there for sexual sins. What purpose could it possibly serve? No productive one that is for certain.