Love Me or Burn!

[Praedicare]

It’s not a threat, but a statement of fact. We cannot reject that by which we live.

To the God-beloved atheists and agnostics reading this thread, and to the one who started it: I, too, used to believe these things. It was the fuel for much of my anger against the concept of God. Now I believe something totally different.

I was raised agnostic, and was atheist by choice during my teenage years. I never did know what people meant by “God”, except as a Sky-Wizard or an Old Man with a long white beard. It seemed quite absurd to me. The notion of “love me or die”, in particular, caused humongous pain and anger in me because of my own experiences in youth.

When I began to study the intricacies of philosophy - specifically, European aristotelian philosophy from AD 1250-1700 - it dawned on me that much of my reaction toward this “God” idea was born from emotion, not logic. It became quite clear that I had been rejecting a sentimental construct, not a rational Being whose ground is the infinite perfection and eternal goodness.

God is not perfect, but God is Perfection itself; God is not Good, but God is the essence of Goodness. The whole Cosmos - every pulsar, quasar, nebula, and 18+ billion light years in between - has God as its center. In logic and rationality, I exchanged my narrow idea of the Cloud-Tyrant with the idea of a simple being: Pure Infinity, Pure Eternity, Boundless Immensity, majestic immeasurable Glory. Suddenly, the Sky-Hitler became nothing less than the “One Thing” for which all human beings long. This is called God. God is so absolutely far and beyond our imagination; for example, eternity is not “endless time”, but timelessness. Infinity is not “immeasurable space”, but spacelessness. Pure Spirit; Pure Truth.

What is “Hell”? Surely, we can allow the Bible - one of the biggest, most varied Libraries of literary genres in human history - a little bit of metaphor and allegory. What is a lake of fire? Eternal torment? Gnashing of teeth? Death? It’s the loss of our Ground Of Being. It’s the failure to dwell in That Which Gives Us Life. Since we’re humans, and have a body as well as a soul, this will be manifested bodily at the end of time. God does not delight in it.

God created all things - not just humans - specifically and solely to share His existence. He pours it out profusely. It’s in His very nature. Imagine yourself as a car, for a moment: without lubricant, without oil, and without gas, you will stop and you won’t go again. You will rust. God is the auto-shop, the tools, the oil, and - most importantly - the Mechanic.

Imagine yourself, even better, as a human being. You need to eat. Food sustains the physical body. The spiritual presence of God is like food to the soul. Reject food and water - see how long you live. Reject God - see how long you live. It’s not a threat, but a statement of fact. We cannot reject that by which we live. Removing God is like pulling out the life-support system in a hospital. Period.

 

[Dorothy]

:newidea: Although we are infinitely less intelligent than God, we can still use human logic to better understand him.

God created us to live life, enjoying it to the fullest. The trick is to not live life in a way where we will cause damage to ourselves and others. By causing damage to ourselves and ours, we damage the natural state of the Earth and our relationship with God.

Hell can be considered as a result of a person’s persistence in making choices that damage Earth and its inhabitants.

The are various hints in the bible which suggest that God isn’t an all-out tyrant. See Numbers 32, The Request of Gad and Reuben. :bible1:

The tribes of Gad and Reuben requested that they remain in a large grazing country in exchange for not entering the Promised Land. Through Moses, God granted that request. There was of course a compromise, but this event shows that God can be flexible, unlike the average tyrant!

We human beings govern God, our creator, via our decisions. Even though God’s sovereignty can’t be weakened, his willingness to further bless his creation can increase or decrease as a result of our decisions, both big and small. In this sense, we have influence over God.

:newidea:

Human beings can further enhance their love and appreciation for themselves by glorifying themselves through their Creator.

By glorifying God through our decisions, we are in essence also glorifying ourselves, recognizing that we are the climax of God’s creativity and expressing gratitude to him for granting us a high status in creation. After God and the Angels, we are the third most powerful creatures in existence!!! (Thank God I wasn’t born a cockroach!)

I second your remark about a cockroach! I live in Florida. I think it is the state bird.

 

[whoisdiss]

Assumption after assumption… You don’t really understand the theology of hell and loving God don’t you? You see, hell is more than just a punishment… it’s actually a way of God showing respect to us and our choices. If we don’t want to follow him in this life, then we wouldn’t want to in the next. Hell is total separation from God, no access to him. So, God respects your decision and places you in hell. So if you don’t want to be with God fine… he respects your decision. But that total separation from God in hell… will eat away at you… and will make you feel tormented. Now, please be respectful of our beliefs. Why do you think there are so many stereotypes about atheist being jerks?

 

[catybug]

Like soneone else said, we dont love God so we dont go to hell. We love God because God because God is Love in of itself. Hell is the absence of Love, because we chose to turn away from it. If God is the ebodiment of Love and Perfection, then Hell is the complete absence of that.

The only way to avoi this is too not exist at all. But even to make such a choice, if there were one, to not exist, you wouldve had to exist at some point I would think, even as just a soul and a soul doesnt just go away. Even the Angels, who are without a body, had make a choice, and some chose to turn away from God and thats why we have Satan and Demons in the first place. So to make a “choice” as to live or not live at all means you would have to exist at some point in some way, and since a soul does not die, what would happen ? Where would they go? This line of thinking just doesnt make sense. ( Im a little uncertain whether I even made sense talking about it xD) Even choosing to “not play the game” as you said is still choosing to live in absence of God, the logical assumption would be you would still live in eternity on the absence of God, which would still be Hell. Its not a question of Love or Burn. Its a question of presence or absence.

 

[Flagstone]

Assumption after assumption… You don’t really understand the theology of hell and loving God don’t you? You see, hell is more than just a punishment… it’s actually a way of God showing respect to us and our choices. If we don’t want to follow him in this life, then we wouldn’t want to in the next. Hell is total separation from God, no access to him. So, God respects your decision and places you in hell. So if you don’t want to be with God fine… he respects your decision. But that total separation from God in hell… will eat away at you… and will make you feel tormented. Now, please be respectful of our beliefs. Why do you think there are so many stereotypes about atheist being jerks?

I think I would prefer to be disrespected.

 

[Todd977]

The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035)

From the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their life.

 

[Vico]

(n.b. I did the “Ask the Apologist” first, heard no reply for two weeks, so now I am here. I presume that is the correct path. If not, I apologize. )

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

(Arguably, one cannot be asked before one is created, so on the surface my complaint is illogical. But, your god is the lord of history - of space and time, right? Therefore, there is at least one option that could be offered: to never have existed.)

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind. The game itself is evil. Imagine parents doing this to their children - love me or die! Or even, love me or get out of my house! Neither of which is good. But, that is exactly what your god is doing and, literally, on an infinite scale.

Incredibly, you believe this is the entire purpose of your existence: to brainwash yourself into loving an entity that will burn you forever if you don’t.

Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

You did not choose to be created, so glory and happiness are a choice you are made to make, but may choose to see God face to face, or not, for eternity. Sadistic means deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. We read in the Genesis 6:5-6 that God does not derive pleasure like that, therefore He is not sadistic:“When the LORD saw how great the wickedness of human beings was on earth, and how every desire that their heart conceived was always nothing but evil, the LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.”
Then God destroyed all with the flood. Later in Genesis 8:21 we read that:“When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, the LORD said to himself: Never again will I curse the ground because of human beings, since the desires of the human heart are evil from youth; nor will I ever again strike down every living being, as I have done.”
**Baltimore Catechism No. 2 **

1. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.
2. Q. What must we do to save our souls? A. To save our souls we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.
3. Q. What is Hell? A. Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.
4. Q. What is Heaven? A. Heaven is the state of everlasting life in which we see God face to face, are made like unto Him in glory, and enjoy eternal happiness.

 

[polytropos]

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

What do you mean by “game”? (It’s ironic that Wittgenstein held that it is impossible to give necessary and sufficient conditions for a game.) Think of characteristic expressions of love: buying a gift for your beloved, saving a child from a burning building, donating money to charity. These are not moves in a “game”.

Neither is burning a move in a game. It’s a consequence for not doing something that you ought to do. We are all born into countries, and countries have laws. We are given the option: Follow the Law or Go to Jail. We must choose between these options against our will; if we prefer a middle way (breaking the law, but staying out of jail), we will receive little sympathy from the state or from our countrymen.

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

I don’t think so. If the Catholic scenario (I’ve accepted your framing of it for the sake of argument, though I view it as inaccurate*) is an instance of “playing a game against our will,” then being born into a country with laws that restrict our behaviors is an instance of “playing a game against our will.” So if the Catholic scenario is unjust, then the state and all of its laws backed by punishment are unjust. Therefore, your position entails that we are obliged to be anarchists. Notwithstanding the arguments of those who are serious anarchists, I regard this as a reductio ad absurdum.

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind.

Such games have also been created by groups of such sick, sadistic minds, viz. the Founding Fathers.

*What is inaccurate is that the punishment is more of a consequence of what people have done. God desires for all whom he has created to live with him eternally, but if they damage their souls too much in the course of life, then it is impossible for them to attain the Beatific Vision.

 

[Contarini]

(n.b. I did the “Ask the Apologist” first, heard no reply for two weeks, so now I am here. I presume that is the correct path. If not, I apologize. )

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

No. Perhaps you should let Catholics (and other Christians) say what they believe. It isn’t about “proving love for God,” but learning to love (God and other people). If you don’t learn to love, you will spend eternity not loving. It’s as simple as that.

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

(Arguably, one cannot be asked before one is created, so on the surface my complaint is illogical. But, your god is the lord of history - of space and time, right? Therefore, there is at least one option that could be offered: to never have existed.)

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind. The game itself is evil. Imagine parents doing this to their children - love me or die! Or even, love me or get out of my house! Neither of which is good. But, that is exactly what your god is doing and, literally, on an infinite scale.

Incredibly, you believe this is the entire purpose of your existence: to brainwash yourself into loving an entity that will burn you forever if you don’t.

Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

Yes. Your basic mistake, like that of many other folks, is to call God “an entity” or “a god.” God, in orthodox Christian belief, is Being Itself (or in some understandings, even “beyond Being”). God is the source of all good–that is, everything that really exists. God is not just another being who shares the universe with us and has a lot of power. Hence, your analogies don’t work. To reject God is to choose misery, because of who/what God is. It isn’t that God inflicts this vindictively, but that that’s the only possible result of a definitive choice against God.

As you more or less admit, it doesn’t really make sense to say that a person could have the choice to exist. Even God can’t do things that involve a logical contradiction, and it makes sense that it would be logically contradictory to choose something without ever having existed. You’re making an incoherent demand.

Now the question does arise: why would God give the gift of life irrevocably? And indeed, is that what God has done? Some Christians believe in “annihilationism” or “conditional immortality”–that those who reject God’s grace cease to exist. As you note, that isn’t the Catholic position or the traditional Christian position generally. However, some folks, like C. S. Lewis, have argued for a kind of damnation that is pretty close to annihilation–that people dwindle endlessly toward nothingness but never quite get there.

Let’s assume that the gift of conscious, rational life is indeed irrevocable. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the possibility that in fact, if we really understood what it is to be sentient, thinking, loving beings, we would understand that there is no logical possibility that such beings could cease to exist. (I’m willing to consider the possibility that annihilationism is true after all, but of course I will be called a heretic for that by many on this forum.)

Edwin

 

[DelsonJacobs]

(n.b. I did the “Ask the Apologist” first, heard no reply for two weeks, so now I am here. I presume that is the correct path. If not, I apologize. )

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

(Arguably, one cannot be asked before one is created, so on the surface my complaint is illogical. But, your god is the lord of history - of space and time, right? Therefore, there is at least one option that could be offered: to never have existed.)

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind. The game itself is evil. Imagine parents doing this to their children - love me or die! Or even, love me or get out of my house! Neither of which is good. But, that is exactly what your god is doing and, literally, on an infinite scale.

Incredibly, you believe this is the entire purpose of your existence: to brainwash yourself into loving an entity that will burn you forever if you don’t.

Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

I used to believe this.

I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time. We believed that Catholics have this sort of view of God and life and eternity.

I was totally convinced that this was the view of Catholics and an honest picture of the teachings of Catholicism. But I was very incorrect.

Often when we have a strong set of convictions (and this can happen to Catholics and atheists and agnostics, etc.) we create our own “reality” regarding what other people believe and why. Often this is done because it backs up our own convictions. We do a good job of being selective to the facts we want to focus on while ignoring the other facts that we should take into account due to compartmentalization.

This is what I did as a Jehovah’s Witness. I was totally convinced that I knew Catholic doctrine–and it was practically the same as you read here by the original poster (I could have been the one to write it some 20 years ago if you had met me then, to be honest!).

But this isn’t what Catholics teach or believe.

Catholics don’t believe anyone is put here on earth to prove their love for God or else burn eternally in hell. On the contrary…

We believe that God has brought us into existence* in order for Him to prove his love for us,* not the other way around.

Hell is not what happens if we don’t love God in return. Hell is what we make of our lives if we reject love, all love, period. A life without love from others, without loving another human being, that is hell.

Love from others is a reflection of God whenever it comes to us. When we say no to love that is offered to us then we don’t have to wait for eternity to experience what it is to live in hell. Just as we can have glimpses of heaven now we can also experience glimpses of hell now by saying no to those who love us and “no” to those around us we should love–even those who believe differently than we do.

So you are incorrect in what you believe about Catholics, but correct that if such a belief were true it would be “the creation of a sick, sadistic mind.”

Thank goodness you have the wrong understanding of what we actually believe.

 

[seagal]

I can never understand why atheists throw out challenges like this. You claim not to believe in God but then you call foul on him for not playing fair. You might ask yourself who made the rules in the first placer? You spout off nonsense and claim this is what Catholics believe, even when we tell you in no uncertain terms that what you assert isn’t even close to what we believe. Try instead asking who God is, keep an open mind and see what happens. If you don’t want to do even that much, why are you bothering us?

 

[Mystophilus]

You miss my point - I must have not made the tertium datur argument explicit. Everyone keeps talking about freewill: I can choose heaven OR hell. But, what if I want to choose a THIRD option: NOT TO PLAY THE GAME? (Knowing I’ll give up heaven, but also negate the risk of hell.)

The game is not quite what you think it is.

To summarise the following, you are entirely justified in thinking that a good God would not condemn someone to Hell merely for choosing the wrong option in an exam on a wholly-unprovable metaphysical claim. This fact has long been understood by Christians, and the most reasonable presumption is that God has some kind of third option.

Please take a moment to read through this passage:
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Where does it say anything about what they believed?

Here is another to which the same question can be applied:
Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

We do not know what God has in store for people who were born, lived, and died in places to which the Gospel message never came (e.g., the Americas before the arrival of Europeans), but it is logical to believe that a good God has a solution other than to burn them all for being unbelievers.

The same logic applies to the case of, say, an Afghan child whose family are blown apart by the bombs of a “Christian” nation: that one traumatic event will most likely make it impossible for her to ever embrace the Christian gospel, and she cannot reasonably be charged with wilful and wicked unbelief for that. It is logical to believe that a good God has a solution other than to condemn her.

I cannot see why we should claim that someone like Bertrand Russell, whose comment on God was simply “Not enough evidence”, should fall into any significantly different category. It is logical to believe that a good God has a solution other than to condemn him.

There is a lot of rhetoric, and especially hyperbole, around salvation and condemnation, but transferring that from the believers to the God in whom they believe would not be logical.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I do not have time, energy or ability to read all of the posts.

A word, the Bible uses fire as a symbol for love–God’s love and even our love.

If you do not accept God’s love, then love of the world will consume you.

It is that simple.

 

[lakotak]

Actually from a Catholic perspective that last line is not true. When a soul dies, **there is whats called the general Judgment where Christ will judge the soul and will sentence them to Heaven or Hell (or Purgatory for a time). **Then at the second Coming there is whats known as the Last Judgment, Christ’s Dies Irae, were every human being who has lived will stand before the Judgment seat of Christ and will receive there sentence. His faithful, to everlasting life, the souls who rejected Him and His teachings, to the ‘eternal fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth’. No soul ceases to be. Are souls are immortal.

Pax and welcome to the forum

I think you mean the particular judgement right after the person has died.The Second Coming is the general judgment. Christ only directs the soul in the direction in which the soul’s life has been lived, either for Him or against Him.

 

[uncompleted99]

I went through every reply and tried to reply below.

I see a few common misunderstandings, which I presume are due to people skimming the post.

To clarify, (1) I am not an atheist, (2) I am suggesting that an withholding an “opt-out” option is unjust.

First 6000 character response:

@Kay Cee,

Lucifer rejected a decision by God to manifest himself as Man, which would require Lucifer to worship Jesus, the God-Man - something that Lucifer’s pride would not accept. That is not the same as my complaint.

With your analogy to a boat you are closer, but no cigar. Like many of the posters that come after you, you think I’m complaining about the choice between Heaven and Hell. I’m not. I’m complaining about being forced to make that choice - or in your boat analogy - I’m saying that the person that put me in a boat in the middle of the ocean is unjust for doing so.

@JRKH,

It is not a philosophical issue. If god is truly just then he would provide an option for people that do not wish to struggle through life “playing” the game - they’re not interested in heaven and they don’t want to risk hell. They want out of the game. That choice is not provided, so playing the game is forced, with only one way to “win” - conform. That is not just.

As far as heaven - I have no idea what heaven is, so why would I WANT something that cannot be described or easily referenced on earth - like Hell? Looking at the physical manifestation of the kingdom of god on earth, it would appear that Catholics can’t indulge in a lot of fun - sex outside of marriage, using contraception so that sex can be pleasure only, etc. (Except that last one, a lot of Catholics I talk to seem to think it is ok, but my research indicates otherwise). If the kingdom of heaven on earth is that bereft of happy pursuits, I think it logical to assume that heaven is more aggressively so. But, that’s just a guess.

@PennyinCanada,

To your credit, you grasped the issue, but, you didn’t have an answer and proceeded to use a put-down in its place. (Good demonstration of the virtue of charity in action, or perhaps you’re not catholic and don’t know about that.)

@Faxero,

An interesting response, but I don’t see how it answers my issue. Also, I thought the entire reason that the fallen angels fell was because God’s children were to be ranked ABOVE them and that they rejected that and thus were cast to hell. That would mean humans would be #2, not #3.

** @Julian0404,**

You give a thoughtful answer and one that made me think, but I still don’t think you address the issue. Ultimately, we humans have only two choices - do “X” and go to heaven, not “X” and go to hell. You further claim that if I reject the dilemma entirely (e.g. the desire to “opt-out”), that that too is a sin - a sin against the holy spirit because the holy spirit has a “plan” and gives “joy”. That actually seems close to the real answer, but I have a feeling that it isn’t quite there. Just because the holy spirit has a plan, it doesn’t mean that it is one that I’d like to do. I still lack that choice to say “no thank you, I do not wish to play” in a neutral fashion. That option is not given and seems unjust. @Contarini, below, works along the same lines as you do. Worth your time to read. ]

@Richard White,

No offense, but your answer was a deflection, not an answer. The implication of my issue is that a god DOES exist, but he is not good. You assume he is good.

@Praedicare,

I’m not an atheist. I’m not rejecting god. You read more into what I wrote and came to a conclusion that is not true. I am posing a problem that only Julian0404 and Contarini seem to have come close to answering.

@whoisdiss,

Please show me in my post where I said I was an atheist. I’m not. Talk about assumptions! You also completely missed the point of my post, suggesting to me that perhaps you did not actually read it.

@catybug,

In my post, I had suggested that god, being all powerful, could remove you from space-time. I think that is entirely possible from what I understand of the catholic’s version of god.

@Todd977,

You either didn’t read the post or didn’t understand it. I’m not talking about heaven vs hell. I’m talking about the lack of an option to reject both and to simply have never existed - an option which is not offered - which seems unjust.

@Vico,

You read part of my post, but not entirely. See my response to @Todd977 - I’m not talking about heaven vs hell.

 

[uncompleted99]

Second 6000 character reply:

@polytropos,

I could always flee my current country and go to another one. Thus, I would still have an “opt-out”. But, in my post, I make the suggestion of removal of a person’s existence in space-time. The closest allegory would be a person committing suicide in your country scenario, which would still be an “opt-out” and the State would be unable to punish that person.

@Contarini,

Ok, you use the term “learn”, but learning to love is a requirement for heaven, therefore, by learning to love you prove to god that your goal is love and therefore to get to heaven to be in union with him. Sprinkle in a little confession, and you’re good. I still call that “proving” - but if you like learning, fine.

I’m not making an incoherent demand - under the presumption that god can remove anyone from space-time - and I’ll assume that he can until you say he cannot - which you allude to - it is perfectly reasonable to ask: why has this option been withheld from humans? And, is it just to do so? However, if he cannot, then and only then, is my issue invalid.

So, are you saying that god cannot remove a person from space-time?

@DelsonJacobs,

Even if your assumption that we exist so that god can prove his love for us is true (I don’t think that is entirely true - I thought we existed so that god could SHARE his love with us - which is different) - you did not answer my question. If one does not want to play this game called life, one should have an opt-out option. We do not. I feel that is unjust and points to the possibility of an unjust deity.

@seagal,

Please show me where I claimed to not believe in god. The rest of your post is posited upon something I never said or implied. If I am bothering you, I apologize. I thought Catholics practiced Charity. Perhaps that is some other religion I was reading about, or perhaps you’re not catholic.

@Mystophilus,

Isn’t your post just a rehash of the heretical concept of Universalism? I’m not talking about that. I’m saying that the lack of an “opt-out” is evil.

**
@Jim Baur,**

The example that I gave was to “opt-out” of this world, and thus a person would not be consumed by this world or hell or anything else if he didn’t exist.

 

[josh987654321]

.

Hi uncompleted99

I would first say, when you reject God, what do you believe you are rejecting?
1 John 4:16:

God is love. If we keep on loving others, we will stay one in our hearts with God, and he will stay one with us.

So God is Love and by rejecting Him, you are saying that you do not want Love, so why are you cursing God for giving you exactly what you asked for?

I think you may also have a misunderstanding of hell too.

People seem to think that hell works a little bit like this -

God gives us time, but if we haven’t made the right choices by the end of our lives, he casts our souls into hell for all eternity. These souls in hell then cry out for mercy but God say’s “Too Late! You had your chance! Now you will suffer!”

However, I believe this misunderstands the very nature of evil.

The biblical picture is that sin separates us from the presence of God, which is the source of all joy, love, wisdom or good things of any sort. Since we were originally created for God’s immediate presence, only before His face will we thrive, flourish and achieve our highest potential. If we were to lose His presence totally, that would be hell, the loss of our capability for giving or receiving love or joy.

A common view of hell is fire; fire disintegrates. Even in this life we can see the kind of soul disintegration that self-centeredness creates. We know how selfishness and self-absorption leads to piercing bitterness, nauseating envy, paralysing anxiety, paranoid thoughts, and the mental denials and distortions that accompany them. Now ask the question:* “What if wen we die, we don’t end, but spiritually our life extends on into eternity?”*

Hell then, is the trajectory of the soul, living a self-absorbed, self-centered life, going on and on forever.

Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 supports this view of hell presented here, Lazarus is a poor man who begs at the gate of a cruel rich man. They both die and Lazarus goes to heaven while the Rich Man goes to hell. There he looks up and sees Lazarus in heaven.
Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Luke 16:24-31

24 he said to Abraham, “Have pity on me! Send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and touch my tongue. I’m suffering terribly in this fire.”

25 Abraham answered, “My friend, remember that while you lived, you had everything good, and Lazarus had everything bad. Now he is happy, and you are in pain. 26 And besides, there is a deep ditch between us, and no one from either side can cross over.”

27 But the rich man said, “Abraham, then please send Lazarus to my father’s home. 28 Let him warn my five brothers, so they won’t come to this horrible place.”

29 Abraham answered, “Your brothers can read what Moses and the prophets wrote. They should pay attention to that.”

30 Then the rich man said, “No, that’s not enough! If only someone from the dead would go to them, they would listen and turn to God.”

31 So Abraham said, “If they won’t pay attention to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even to someone who comes back from the dead.”

What’s interesting is that though their statuses have now been reversed, the Rich Man seems to be blind as to what has happened. He still expects Lazarus to be his servant and treats him as his water boy. He doesn’t ask to get out of hell, but strongly implies that God never gave him and his family enough information about the afterlife.

Others have noted the amount of denial, blame-shifting, and spiritual blindness in this soul in hell. Others have also noted that the Rich Man, unlike Lazarus, is never given a personal name. He is only called a “Rich Man” strongly hinting that since he had built his identity on his wealth rather than on God, once he lost his wealth he lost any sense of a self.

In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity. We see this process “On the small scale” in addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, and pornography. First, there is disintegration, because as time goes on you need more and more of the addictive substance to get a kick, which leads to less and less satisfaction.

Second, there is the isolation, as increasingly they blame others and circumstances in order to justify their behaviour. “No one understands, Everyone is against me!” is muttered in greater and greater self-pity and self-absorption. When we build our lives on anything but God, that thing, though a good, thing becomes an enslaving addiction, something we have to have to be happy.

“The very freedom which the sinner supposedly exercises in his self-indulgence is only another proof that he is ruled by the tyrant.”
― Fulton J. Sheen, Life of Christ

Personal disintegration happens on a broader scale, in eternity, this disintegration goes on forever. There is increasing isolation, denial, delusion, and self-absorption. When we lose all humility we are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of Heaven seems to them a sham.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

In C.S. Lewis’ fantasy ‘The Great Divorce’ he describes a bus load of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell, but they refuse. Lewis’ depiction of those are striking, because in them we recognise the self delusion and self absorption that are “On the small scale” in our own addictions.

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others… but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine. It is not a question of God “sending us” to hell. In each of us there is something growing, which will BE HELL unless it is nipped in the bud. - C.S. Lewis

The people in hell are miserable and C.S. Lewis helps show us why. We se raging like unchecked flames their pride, their paranoia, their self-pity, their certainty that everyone else is wrong, that everyone else is and idiot! All their humility is gone, and thus so is their sanity. They are locked in a prison of their own self centeredness, and their pride progressively expands into a bigger and bigger mushroom cloud. They continue to go to pieces forever, blaming everyone but themselves. Hell is that, on a large scale.

This is why it’s a travesty to picture God throwing people into hell crying “I’m sorry! Let me out!” The people on the bus from hell would rather have their “freedom,” as they define it, instead of salvation. Ironically they fail to see their sins for what they are -
The Truth Will Set You Free:

John 8:31-34

31 Jesus told the people who had faith in him, “If you keep on obeying what I have said, you truly are my disciples. 32 You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered, “We are Abraham’s children! We have never been anyone’s slaves. How can you say we will be set free?”

34 Jesus replied:

I tell you for certain that anyone who sins is a slave of sin!

Their delusion is that if they glorified God, they would somehow lose power and freedom, but in a supreme and tragic irony, their choice has ruined their own potential for greatness. Hell is, as Lewis say’s *“The greatest monument to human freedom.” *As Romans 1:24 basically says “God gave them up to their own desires.” All God does in the end is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that? Lewis writes -

There are only two kinds of people, those who say “Thy will be done” to God or those to whom God says in the end “Alright, Thy will be done.” All that are in hell choose it Without that self choice it wouldn’t be hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it.

(I often see this in the New Atheists books, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc, I believe they promise freedom of religion as they say, but really just bring new forms of slavery to souls who embrace their philosophies).

Note: I paraphrased much of this from the book 'The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

What would an “opt-out” option look like? You have to exist to “opt-out” and even then, we all make mistakes, that sounds kinda like givin’ a loaded gun to your kid to play with imho. How could any human, limited in it’s knowledge compared to the omniscience of God, ever make an informed decision on something like that?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

You seem to have a very polarised view of God. And you are wrong in stating that the ‘game is the creation of a sick, sadistic mind’…God gives people every chance to enter into His Kingdom…in fact He actually encourages it, so much that He sent Jesus to suffer for us all.
There is another thought, that it is only those who accept the Number of the Beast who will burn in eternal torment…the rest of us unbelievers will just cease to exist.

Now, I am a staunch atheist, so these views are not mine…but I am on a Catholic forum to learn…if I pose a question, I do not use inflammatory phrases…would you be offended if I called someone you loved sick and sadistic? I think so.
Please be respectful in the phrases you use…and you will learn a lot,
and if you really hate religion, then there are plenty of atheist forums on which you can post.

Thank you.