Is God a kind, loving God or a mean, vengeful God?

[Tom_Baum]

You are misinterpreting my words - and implying that the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross hasn’t enabled the saints to fulfil the precept of Jesus to become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. For God all things are possible…

Your words were, “Of course! Except for the saints who not harm themselves or others deliberately.”

What I replied to them was that basically ALL of the saints were sinners, how is that “misinterpreting” your words when it seems as if you are saying that the saints were sinless?

And as far as, “For God all things are possible…”.

Who knows maybe since God became One of us to die for us this in turn gives us the “ability” to die for others rather than just the chance to get to the “good place”.

Maybe Christianity is about more that we, ourselves, getting to the “good place”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Best pithy and logical response to the above, by Peter Kreeft:

“Hell follows from two other doctrines: heaven and free will. If there is a heaven, there can be a not-heaven. And if there is free will, we can act on it and abuse it. Those who deny hell must also deny either heaven (as does Western secularism) or free will (as does Eastern pantheism).”
Hell by Peter Kreeft

Seems to me that we have all abused our free will, isn’t that what the Incarnation and everything concerning it is about?

I have not denied hell nor have I denied free will, as a matter of fact, I have stated that I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So are you saying that “the saints” did not need Jesus’s work on the cross done for them since they did NO WRONG?

The saints, after they truly became saints would and could do no wrong. It is in the process of becoming saints that they would recognize their proclivity to do wrong. It is in the unabashed recognition of their potential to do wrong and resolute battle against that proclivity that saints became saints. They were not “saints” in the true sense of the word while on their journey towards sanctity, even though we now refer to them as saints

 

[Peter_Plato]

Seems to me that we have all abused our free will, isn’t that what the Incarnation and everything concerning it is about?

I have not denied hell nor have I denied free will, as a matter of fact, I have stated that I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

Tom,

I appreciate your thoughtful views and the passion with which you express them.

You have stated that you think hell is not a logical implication from free will because there is nothing about having a free will that necessarily implies that a being endowed with it could not merely cease to exist or be uncreated.

Perhaps that is true.

However, what if it isn’t? What if consciousness and the kind of existential autonomy that moral agents possess is and can only be necessitated by a particular kind of ontology? In other words that in order to truly possess free will in the sense of having the power to originate real and novel causal effects requires a ground of existence or being that transcends the natural order and is one that cannot so easily be removed? “Ceasing to exist” may not be the kind of thing that can occur through some magical incantation or divine snap of the fingers.

Why would God bother to become man and as you say, relinquish his divine powers, if it was a simple matter merely to uncreate beings when they “go wrong?” Redemption would not seem to be necessary if he could just “forget” such beings in such a way that they never existed?

The problem here, it seems to me, is that we are being strongly cautioned about that which we ought to be cautious about.

I did not create my “self,” - in fact, I did not even know what a “self” could be or could even possible until I began to exist as a “self.” I find no plausible explanation for “selfhood” in the sense that I now understand it from anything “objective” in the world. There is no objective explanation for having a “self” that comes from the natural world. I view selfhood as a precious gift from a source that is in many ways unknown to me, but also in many ways provides glimpses into why selfhood is largely unknown to me.

The fact that God identifies himself as I AM WHO AM and that we are made in God’s image and likeness entails something about the “self” we have been given - it’s source, it’s significance, it’s enduring value and even it’s ontology, perhaps. The question about why human beings seem to be “at war” or enmity with God is, I suspect, key to understanding the question of what it does mean to exist as a “self” and why we have such a difficult time, existentially speaking, being who we are in this seemingly foreign reality.

 

[PRmerger]

This sure seems to be pulled out of thin air by you and/or others, since how could one find the Beatific Vision “so repugnant” if they never had it?

Astonishing for a Catholic to believe he’s never had, at least a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision. One would think this Catholic had never been to Mass. Had never received Him and become One Flesh with Him in the Eucharist. Or had never been in love.

As CS Lewis said: “All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it—or else that it was within your grasp and you have lost it forever” goodreads.com/quotes/132354-all-your-life-an-unattainable-ecstasy-has-hovered-just-beyond

 

[PRmerger]

Seems to me that we have all abused our free will, isn’t that what the Incarnation and everything concerning it is about?

Sure.

I have not denied hell nor have I denied free will, as a matter of fact, I have stated that I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

Then what are we talking about? If you believe hell exists, what is your objection to the Catholic teaching on hell?

Again, from Peter Kreeft: The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

 

[RBushlow]

No, God is giving you signposts to avoid going over a cliff. He’s telling us what will happen if we ignore the signs.

If you follow Him, you get eternal joy and happiness.

I agree with Ignatius. Follow the signs, do go over a cliff, and end up with eternal happiness.

It’s a pretty sweet deal.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The saints, after they truly became saints would and could do no wrong. It is in the process of becoming saints that they would recognize their proclivity to do wrong. It is in the unabashed recognition of their potential to do wrong and resolute battle against that proclivity that saints became saints. They were not “saints” in the true sense of the word while on their journey towards sanctity, even though we now refer to them as saints

If we want to speak of saints as Paul spoke of it saints, we are the saints.

If we want to speak of saints as you are speaking of saints, I would say that NONE of them were “saints” before they kicked the bucket.

My opinion is that any saint would probably tell you or anyone else that they might have tried to be “perfect” but that they came up short.

Could very well be that their “honesty” concerning their coming up short was their “perfection”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Astonishing for a Catholic to believe he’s never had, at least a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision. One would think this Catholic had never been to Mass. Had never received Him and become One Flesh with Him in the Eucharist. Or had never been in love.

As CS Lewis said: “All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it—or else that it was within your grasp and you have lost it forever” goodreads.com/quotes/132354-all-your-life-an-unattainable-ecstasy-has-hovered-just-beyond

You wrote, "As far as, “God would not impose upon them His Beatific Vision if they find it so repugnant.”

I replied, “This sure seems to be pulled out of thin air by you and/or others, since how could one find the Beatific Vision “so repugnant” if they never had it?”

You then replied, “Astonishing for a Catholic to believe he’s never had, at least a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision. One would think this Catholic had never been to Mass. Had never received Him and become One Flesh with Him in the Eucharist. Or had never been in love.”

You wrote concerning all humanity and I answered concerning all humanity than your answer was concerning me and me alone, why?

This does not answer the observation that I made at all.

Do you think that ALL have had a glimpse of the “Beatific Vision”?

I don’t know just what the “Beatific Vision” is but from what some write about the “Beatific Vision”, it seems that some think/believe that it is staring at God for Eternity, is this also the way that you envision the “Beatific Vision” to be?

Would you consider meeting Dad and coming to the realization that the statement, God Is Love, to be quite literal, to be “a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision”?

I never thought of it that way, I was, to put it mildly, quite surprised and it made me realize that something as simple and profound as the very Nature of God could be revealed and that only thru it being revealed could it be “known” as opposed to “believed”.

It seems as if quite a few people think that believe and know are one and the same word or at least mean the exact same thing, I am NOT one of these people.

Just because C S Lewis wrote something does not mean that it is “truth set in stone”, does it?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Tom,

I appreciate your thoughtful views and the passion with which you express them.

You have stated that you think hell is not a logical implication from free will because there is nothing about having a free will that necessarily implies that a being endowed with it could not merely cease to exist or be uncreated.

Perhaps that is true.

You wrote, “You have stated that you think hell is not a logical implication from free will because there is nothing about having a free will that necessarily implies that a being endowed with it could not merely cease to exist or be uncreated.”

I can not say that I have stated this for the simple reason that I have no idea what you are talking about in this statement.

I have stated that I experienced hell and that I do not believe that I have experienced worse than Jesus since I believe that Jesus “experienced” everyone’s hell since everyone’s hell is different since everyone’s hell is custom built by its potential inhabitant.

As far as ceasing “to exist or be uncreated”, I have stated that if God is even remotely like what some think God to be than I hope, pray, beg and beseech God to completely and utterly destroy me, in essence to unexist me.

However, what if it isn’t? What if consciousness and the kind of existential autonomy that moral agents possess is and can only be necessitated by a particular kind of ontology? In other words that in order to truly possess free will in the sense of having the power to originate real and novel causal effects requires a ground of existence or being that transcends the natural order and is one that cannot so easily be removed? “Ceasing to exist” may not be the kind of thing that can occur through some magical incantation or divine snap of the fingers.

Why would God bother to become man and as you say, relinquish his divine powers, if it was a simple matter merely to uncreate beings when they “go wrong?” Redemption would not seem to be necessary if he could just “forget” such beings in such a way that they never existed?

The problem here, it seems to me, is that we are being strongly cautioned about that which we ought to be cautious about.

Concerning “Why would God bother to become man and as you say, relinquish his divine powers, if it was a simple matter merely to uncreate beings when they “go wrong?” Redemption would not seem to be necessary if he could just “forget” such beings in such a way that they never existed?”

I believe that God created us, ALL OF US, to be with God in God’s Kingdom and His Plan is for ALL to be with Him, ultimately, and God becoming One of us in the Incarnation is just part of God’s Plan which God has had since before creation.

I did not create my “self,” - in fact, I did not even know what a “self” could be or could even possible until I began to exist as a “self.” I find no plausible explanation for “selfhood” in the sense that I now understand it from anything “objective” in the world. There is no objective explanation for having a “self” that comes from the natural world. I view selfhood as a precious gift from a source that is in many ways unknown to me, but also in many ways provides glimpses into why selfhood is largely unknown to me.

The fact that God identifies himself as I AM WHO AM and that we are made in God’s image and likeness entails something about the “self” we have been given - it’s source, it’s significance, it’s enduring value and even it’s ontology, perhaps. The question about why human beings seem to be “at war” or enmity with God is, I suspect, key to understanding the question of what it does mean to exist as a “self” and why we have such a difficult time, existentially speaking, being who we are in this seemingly foreign reality.

As far as us being “made in God’s image and likeness”, since God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being a mere attribute of God, LOVE, I believe, is the “image and likeness” of God that we are made in.

When Love shines thru us, any of us, it is God’s Image and Likeness shining thru us and when Love does not shine thru us than God’s Image and Likeness is NOT shining thru us.

Something to think about: Is the “war” between God and man or is it between God and satan concerning man?

Man, as in humanity.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Sure.

Then what are we talking about? If you believe hell exists, what is your objection to the Catholic teaching on hell?

Again, from Peter Kreeft: The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

I did NOT say that I believe hell exists, I said that I know it is real since I have experienced hell.

I have also said that I do NOT believe that I have experienced worse than Jesus since I believe, not know, but believe that Jesus went to everyone’s hell by accomplishing His “work” on the cross whereas God allowed me to experience my own custom-built hell.

Going to everyone’s hell is the RANSOM that Jesus paid that is spoken of in the bible.

I have also said that I believe that Jesus “won” the “keys to the netherworld” by what He accomplished on the cross and will use these keys in due time, God’s Time and that Jesus told us the “mission” of His Church when He said, “… I will build MY CHURCH and the ‘GATES OF THE NETHERWORLD’ shall NOT prevail against IT”.

Peter Kreeft is partially right in that the Consuming Fire of Love, God, can burn or caress.

Many, if not most, underestimate God and just what God can and will do.

Ever heard that there are two judgements?

If you have, have you ever wondered why?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that ALL have had a glimpse of the “Beatific Vision”?

All baptized people, yes.

I don’t know just what the “Beatific Vision” is but from what some write about the “Beatific Vision”, it seems that some think/believe that it is staring at God for Eternity, is this also the way that you envision the “Beatific Vision” to be?

Yes.

Would you consider meeting Dad and coming to the realization that the statement, God Is Love, to be quite literal, to be “a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision”?

I don’t know what this means.

Just because C S Lewis wrote something does not mean that it is “truth set in stone”, does it?

What about it do you find false?

 

[PRmerger]

Peter Kreeft is partially right in that the Consuming Fire of Love, God, can burn or caress

He is partially right?

What is wrong about the rest of his statement: The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

 

[tonyrey]

Your words were, “Of course! Except for the saints who not harm themselves or others deliberately.”

What I replied to them was that basically ALL of the saints were sinners, how is that “misinterpreting” your words when it seems as if you are saying that the saints were sinless?

And as far as, “For God all things are possible…”.

Who knows maybe since God became One of us to die for us this in turn gives us the “ability” to die for others rather than just the chance to get to the “good place”.

Maybe Christianity is about more that we, ourselves, getting to the “good place”.

“Except for the saints who do not harm themselves or others deliberately” doesn’t imply that they have never sinned…

 

[Tom_Baum]

All baptized people, yes.

In response to, “Do you think that ALL have had a glimpse of the “Beatific Vision”?”, you might be right, however I would say that this is merely your opinion.

I disagree with you but this is also just my opinion.

Yes.

In response to, “it seems that some think/believe that it (Beatific Vision) is staring at God for Eternity”, would you say that “heaven” and the “Beatific Vision” are two different things since “heaven”, at least spoken of in some places, seems to be quite a dynamic place?

I don’t know what this means.

In response to, “Would you consider meeting Dad and coming to the realization that the statement, God Is Love, to be quite literal, to be “a glimpse, of the Beatific Vision”?”

It simply means that I met God the Father and that I came to the realization that God Is a Being of Love, that love is NOT a mere attribute of God but Is God’s Very Being.

In meeting God, I did not see God so no “physical vision” was involved, so I suppose, maybe this could be a Beatific meeting but not a Beatific Vision.

What about it do you find false?

I believe that C S Lewis is like a lot of people in that he underestimates God and as I have said before, I believe that quite a few believers will be more surprised when they meet God than some of the non-believers.

 

[Tom_Baum]

He is partially right?

What is wrong about the rest of his statement: The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

For one thing, it is not the “love of God”, It Is God, since love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

Big difference between the two.

Why do you think that Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, Why have Thou forsaken Me?”?

Jesus took ALL of the sins of all upon Himself and in essence became sin for all.

To you, a sinner is a “hater of God”, to me, a sinner is a sinner.

It was for sinners that God became One of us and since we are all sinners, God became One of us for ALL of us.

Could be that God gave us the ability to “custom build our own hell” for a reason rather than the reason that many seem to be rooting for.

Do you think that Jesus paid the ransom and that ransom being going to hell and not just the “abode of the good dead” or do you think that Jesus did not pay the ransom which would have been going to hell?

How about instead of “Imagine a man in hell”, imagine God-Incarnate in hell, and I do mean hell not just the abode of the good dead, for the love of His creation?

So many talk about what God did for us in the Incarnation, except so many don’t even think that it is possible that God really did do more than they think possible.

 

[PRmerger]

In response to, “it seems that some think/believe that it (Beatific Vision) is staring at God for Eternity”, would you say that “heaven” and the “Beatific Vision” are two different things since “heaven”, at least spoken of in some places, seems to be quite a dynamic place?

I think they are the same.

It simply means that I met God the Father and that I came to the realization that God Is a Being of Love, that love is NOT a mere attribute of God but Is God’s Very Being.

Amen!

In meeting God, I did not see God so no “physical vision” was involved, so I suppose, maybe this could be a Beatific meeting but not a Beatific Vision.

Yep.

I believe that C S Lewis is like a lot of people in that he underestimates God and as I have said before, I believe that quite a few believers will be more surprised when they meet God than some of the non-believers.

Where was he wrong in the statement I quoted?

 

[PRmerger]

For one thing, it is not the “love of God”, It Is God, since love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

Big difference between the two.

Why do you think that Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, Why have Thou forsaken Me?”?

Jesus took ALL of the sins of all upon Himself and in essence became sin for all.

To you, a sinner is a “hater of God”, to me, a sinner is a sinner.

It was for sinners that God became One of us and since we are all sinners, God became One of us for ALL of us.

Could be that God gave us the ability to “custom build our own hell” for a reason rather than the reason that many seem to be rooting for.

Do you think that Jesus paid the ransom and that ransom being going to hell and not just the “abode of the good dead” or do you think that Jesus did not pay the ransom which would have been going to hell?

How about instead of “Imagine a man in hell”, imagine God-Incarnate in hell, and I do mean hell not just the abode of the good dead, for the love of His creation?

So many talk about what God did for us in the Incarnation, except so many don’t even think that it is possible that God really did do more than they think possible.

All of the above is a nonsequitur.

None of that explains, even remotely, how Peter Kreeft is wrong in this statement:

The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

 

[Faxero]

The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God’s truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.

This is a pleasant analogy, but it seems to contradict with common sense.

Would God seriously waste his time trying to save a person who is undeniably dammed for eternity?

I have not denied hell nor have I denied free will, as a matter of fact, I have stated that I have experienced both hell and spiritual death.

Agreed. While on Earth, we taste appetizers, or the first-fruits, of both Heaven and Hell. When one glories in the fruits of peace, he will reap peace and reveal his desire for eternal peace. When one glories in the fruits of strife, he will reap the fruits of strife and reveal his desire for eternal strife.

If you wish to experience the happiness of Heaven, remember how happy you were when you went on your first date, the peace you felt when your debts were paid, and the pride bursting within you when your children succeed.

If you wish to experience the horror of Hell, then experience negative feelings: murderous thoughts, “I want to tear out his heart!” envy, why can’t I be like him…and lust. She’s incredibly beautiful. More money, more…You already know what Hell is like. Do you wish to fall into it?

Hence why no one is excused when they’re judged. We *already *know what Heaven and Hell is like!!

 

[PRmerger]

This is a pleasant analogy, but it seems to contradict with common sense.

Would God seriously waste his time trying to save a person who is undeniably dammed for eternity?

It is no loss of time/energy/love to God to continue to be Who He Is. He Is.

The soul just finds who God is odious. And refuses to turn towards that Love, forever.

That’s hell.

Incidentally, a friend of mine just had her husband leave her because he chose his beer over her.

He is in his own private hell, of his own choosing, because he is refusing the love of a good woman, in preference of a silly drunk euphoria that lasts a few hours and then results in crashing misery.

But he won’t leave his beer.