"Q. Can people really go to Hell?" A Response to This Question from a Priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is interesting that he tries to add some detail and nuance, but to the skeptic, this is the same old song and dance which doesn’t make any sense regardless of how many times it is repeated.
 
Perfectly said about free will. And it proves that there is free will. Without free will there is no such thing as good and evil.
 
A rare moment of facile thoughtlessness by Hitchens.

“Free will” can’t be redefined as the opposite of itself.
 
Last edited:
If people couldn’t go to hell wouldn’t God’s entire plan of salvation be a waste of time?
 
Last edited:
No - that would mean Gods plan was working.
 
Last edited:
Why did Jesus spend three years teaching us what we need to do in order to get into heaven if there is no other possible outcome?
 
In Australian Federal election politics the question of hell is getting serious.

“…Prime Minister Scott Morrison has dodged a question about whether he thinks gay people are going to hell, because apparently that’s a hard thing for him to answer.”


The more important question is whether our aspiring (moral) leaders think there is such a place called hell.
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
A rare moment of facile thoughtlessness by Hitchens.

“Free will” can’t be redefined as the opposite of itself
Click to expand...
Yet he is not the one redefining it. The ones making the claim insist we have free will because the boss (God) says so.
 
laylow said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
A rare moment of facile thoughtlessness by Hitchens.

“Free will” can’t be redefined as the opposite of itself
Click to expand...
Yet he is not the one redefining it. The ones making the claim insist we have free will because the boss (God) says so.
Click to expand...
You need someone to tell you that you have free will?
 
goout said:
You need someone to tell you that you have free will?
Click to expand...
That has the casual appearance of a straw man, however, I’ll play. It appears to be a necessary requirement of every justification of eternal punishment. However, true free will does not exist, at least in the ways I continue to see if defined. True free will would be free of consequence. True free will would be free of physical limitations, circumstantial limitations.

But it is so important that I have free will, so that I am not a “robot,” which ironically appears to be the only mechanism available to effectively navigate the strict rules and punishments of Catholicism.

I’m signing off for now, I’ll be back later.
 
How is free will a justification for eternal punishment? We have free will so that we might love.
That is the point of having free will. To love. If we are not free, then we cannot love.

To the extent we abuse this freedom to choose, we choose slavery.
 
Last edited:
I always find it surprising that everybody gets incensed at the idea that people (who, mind you, freely choose hell, as nobody goes there unwilling) could ‘go to hell forever’ because it is so UNFAIR, yet nobody complains about the idea that people can go to heaven forever. Apparently somehow we ‘deserve’ heaven no matter what our supposedly ‘one time sins’ are. How is it that our one time ‘good actions’ are then enough to give us eternal bliss?
 
Lion_IRC said:
No - that would mean Gods plan was working .
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Being unable to go to hell would not indicate the plan was working. It would indicate the plan was meaningless.

Everyone being able to go to hell, but no one going however…that would be awesome.
 
Lion_IRC said:
In Australian Federal election politics the question of hell is getting serious.

“…Prime Minister Scott Morrison has dodged a question about whether he thinks gay people are going to hell, because apparently that’s a hard thing for him to answer.”
Click to expand...
People offended by a place they don’t believe exists.

This thought policing reminds me of Tim Farron in the Motherland (if you’re an Australian monarchist). Which was funny because the one leader that was serious about Remain couldn’t garner support because of his Evangelical Anglican views, which he repeatedly said wouldn’t affect his party’s direction because it wouldn’t be popular with his supporters. Instead Remain supporters flocked to a quasi-Leaver named Corbyn. Clearly, sinking the UK and tearing it apart was much more preferable than having an Evangelical Anglican as main opposition leader or even PM. Intersectionality and identity politics are amazing.

By the way, Morrison’s answer was no, which is correct because inclination versus actions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I second this.

I guess a lot of my objection to eternal Hell is that on the face of it, it sounds incredibly unjust. 1. There is torture. 2. The torture is eternal.

People say “you choose eternal Hell when you commit a mortal sin” but that sounds a little like double speak. Felons don’t choose to be punished, their punishers choose to punish them. God has to make the choice at some point, either in the creation of the world or at your particular judgment. Basically what I’m saying is God is in the dock for torturing people for eternity no matter how you slice it. You could claim that torture is just when it is done by God. I guess you could do that. I guess you could also make the argument that God loves you when he does that, but those arguments have always fallen flat for me.

I’d also say Christians treat eternal Hell as intuitive, like they are old fogies defending the Old Logic, that liberals don’t want to admit. The fact of the matter is, you only get eternal hell through divine revelation of some kind. Pagan Greeks, Hindus, ancient Jews and Buddhists among others didn’t believe in eternal Hell. Either you burned through your good and bad actions, or your just ended up a shade. Heck, some even make it to perfect happiness. Or in the case of Hindus and Buddhists, we all get eternal happiness. It just takes a while.

In my mind the Good News of Christianity as believed by many sounds a lot like a protection racket. “God saves you from your sins” To which I respond, “that’s great, but what I’m really concerned is Him protecting me from Himself.”

The thing is, I’m actually a fan of retributive justice, but it has to actually be justice. Torture for a time, is that just? I’d be open to that argument. Eternity? I honestly find it hard to understand how so many can make that logical leap. But, I guess the answer is “God said so,” so whatever answer we come up with has to be right.
 
That’s why so many believe in reincarnation. You burn through both. Hindu philosophers of old made a clear argument for reincarnation based on the idea that our merits and demerits are inherently limited.

Just on reason alone I wouldn’t believe in eternal heaven. If God was only just, than we would have a limited time in both heaven and Hell. But since we say God is loving, it’s kind of makes sense to believe that he would want us to be with him for eternity.

That’s why I never really saw the “problem of eternal heaven” as a problem in Christianity. We don’t deserve heaven. He gives it to us anyway. That’s what love and mercy are, which is how we describe God. Hell, that’s a different beast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top