The atheists best argument?

[inocente]

“once saved always saved” is not a part of the Catholic creed.

Catholics believe that an un-baptized person cannot be saved using his own efforts by doing good works. Because faith is a gift and not earned. But after receiving the gift of faith by being baptized, salvation cannot be kept unless the words of Christ are kept … “If you love me keep my commandments”. St. Paul has several lists of sins that violate that love and excludes one from Christ’s kingdom.

So initially we are not saved by our good works, but later we cannot be saved without them.

So that is why a Christian would fear damnation, by violating Christ’s command in a serious way.

Wasn’t talking sola fide though, simply in faith that Christ won’t let you down.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thank you. This is an essential matter to me, because I think eternal hellfire is an immoral punishment. If God punishes people with eternal hellfire, He is, in my opinion, immoral.

What else does anyone expect of a secular humanist but self-righteous superiority to God?

 

[fred_conty]

Wasn’t talking sola fide though, simply in faith that Christ won’t let you down.

I agree with you that Christ will never let us down … amen to that.

But … there are aways “buts” … then why would St. Paul issue several lists of sins that will keep christians out of Christ’s kingdom?

What is your thought on why he would issue such lists to Christians?

 

[Cheiron]

What else does anyone expect of a secular humanist but self-righteous superiority to God?

What else does anyone expect of a Catholic but self-righteous superiority to his fellow human beings?

Please answer the argument. Do you think that eternal hellfire is a moral punishment?

 

[inocente]

I agree with you that Christ will never let us down … amen to that.

But … there are aways “buts” … then why would St. Paul issue several lists of sins that will keep christians out of Christ’s kingdom?

What is your thought on why he would issue such lists to Christians?

“Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” - Phil 2

I’d say that for Paul, being a Christian isn’t just a label, it’s about being “of one mind”. Therefore for Paul, those sins don’t keep Christians out of heaven, because he teaches that Christians won’t be minded to commit them. If that makes sense.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Please answer the argument. Do you think that eternal hellfire is a moral punishment?

Yes, because God is just and merciful.

If he was merciful only, there would be heaven for everyone.

But I guess you would object to that too, since you don’t seem to respect or fear God and would blaspheme him for the pleasure of irritating just about everyone in this forum.

Would you mind please showing some respect here?

 

[goout]

What else does anyone expect of a Catholic but self-righteous superiority to his fellow human beings?

Please answer the argument. Do you think that eternal hellfire is a moral punishment?

Please observe what the word “morality” means:
Morality concerns the evaluation of human acts.

In that context the question does not make a lot of sense.
Perhaps you mean to ask if, when a person chooses a thing like hell, if it is just for it to be.

Is that what you meant to ask?

 

[o_mlly]

…

Now I did actually do what I did because I want the office to work better. It’ll make me feel better and I can finish work earlier and get down the pub. Likewise, I don’t want people to think I’m a loser. In fact I would like them to think I’m a nice guy. So it was an easy choice. If you look at it from purely a moral perspective, I did what I did because it was the right thing to do. But there’s a lot going on in the background that is purely driven by the emotions that we feel. …

Lot of “me” and “I” benefits listed as reasons for acting “sociable.” If only you mentioned just one reason as acting for “her” sake. Perhaps you did but failed to note so in your comment.

 

[Cheiron]

Yes, because God is just and merciful.

If he was merciful only, there would be heaven for everyone.

Not necessarily. God could provide a temporary punishment or an eternal punishment that does not involve burning people alive.

But I guess you would object to that too, since you don’t seem to respect or fear God and would blaspheme him for the pleasure of irritating just about everyone in this forum.

Would you mind please showing some respect here?

Only if it’s reciprocated. And I sense I’m not getting a lot of respect from you at this moment. First you called me self-righteous and now you’re saying I’m blaspheming God because I supposedly want to irritate everyone. That is a bold accusation. What is your evidence for this?

This particular thread is about legitimate concerns of many people about God and morality. My questions are on topic and entirely sincere. You don’t seem to believe that. I want to see evidence for that.

Please observe what the word “morality” means:
Morality concerns the evaluation of human acts.

In that context the question does not make a lot of sense.
Perhaps you mean to ask if, when a person chooses a thing like hell, if it is just for it to be.

Is that what you meant to ask?

I think my questions all have to do with the morality of burning people for eternity as a just punishment. Personally, I agree with the U.S. constitution that cruel and unusual punishment should not be inflicted. Hell is a punishment I consider cruel and unusual and a just God should not inflict such punishment, in my opinion.

 

[goout]

I think my questions all have to do with the morality of burning people for eternity as a just punishment. Personally, I agree with the U.S. constitution that cruel and unusual punishment should not be inflicted. Hell is a punishment I consider cruel and unusual and a just God should not inflict such punishment, in my opinion.

Ok that’s clearer.
Your question is about God being just, not about applying morality to him.

Is it just for God to honor another’s choices? Or is it just for God to violate free will?

How can God and a person have a relationship of love if God forces the relationship?
Don’t we know from common sense that does not work. If you force a woman to love you, is that love?
If the woman chooses not to love you, then she chooses consequences, correct? Won’t there be a Cheiron-shaped void in her life?

 

[Cheiron]

Ok that’s clearer.
Your question is about God being just, not about applying morality to him.

Is it just for God to honor another’s choices? Or is it just for God to violate free will?

I’d say that depends on the choices people make. Some choices deserve punishment, other choices don’t. I don’t think free will is something that can be restricted, because willing is something that takes place in the mind. Ofcourse we can and should restrict somebody’s ability to act in accordance with his or her free will. For example: a police officer preventing a murder by wrestling the assassin to the ground. I think a similar intervention would be just for God too.

How can God and a person have a relationship of love if God forces the relationship?
Don’t we know from common sense that does not work. If you force a woman to love you, is that love?

No, that is not love. I don’t think love can be forced.

If the woman chooses not to love you, then she chooses consequences, correct?

Sure. Each choice has consequences. In this case, my hypothetical crush would miss out on someone who can mix a mean martini for her. But there will certainly not be any crime passionnel that involves the burning of people. None of those kind of consequences.

Won’t there be a Cheiron-shaped void in her life?

Probably not. She will move on and date other people - and so will I. Eventually.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thank you. This is an essential matter to me, because I think eternal hellfire is an immoral punishment. If God punishes people with eternal hellfire, He is, in my opinion, immoral.

It is blasphemous to speak of God as immoral.

It’s clear you have no idea that Catholics (at least this particular Catholic) do not appreciate the use of this forum as a place for blasphemous remarks.

Please keep those remarks to yourself.

 

[goout]

Sure. Each choice has consequences. In this case, my hypothetical crush would miss out on someone who can mix a mean martini for her. But there will certainly not be any crime passionnel that involves the burning of people. None of those kind of consequences.

Probably not. She will move on and date other people - and so will I. Eventually.

The point is not to relativize the gravity of the consequences, the point is that there are consequences.

And it is fine for her to move on and date another, but, when we speak of relationship to God, that hole in the life is not going to be replaced by another. And so those consequences create a much larger void. The unfulfilled flames of desire for God burn much deeper than the woman who wishes she had made a better choice. Because you are not God and she will probably get over you.

And so, that burning hole in the soul (hey I just made a rhyme, I claim a patent on that)
is hell.
It is chosen. You will object that God should make it all right, but that would not be love.
Love requires free will, free will makes choices, choices have consequences.

 

[Cheiron]

The point is not to relativize the gravity of the consequences, the point is that there are consequences.

And it is fine for her to move on and date another, but, when we speak of relationship to God, that hole in the life is not going to be replaced by another. And so those consequences create a much larger void. The unfulfilled flames of desire for God burn much deeper than the woman who wishes she had made a better choice. Because you are not God and she will probably get over you.

And so, that burning hole in the soul (hey I just made a rhyme, I claim a patent on that)
is hell.
It is chosen. You will object that God should make it all right, but that would not be love.
Love requires free will, free will makes choices, choices have consequences.

Thank you for explaining. Actually, I have no moral problems with that concept of hell. It’s specifically the concept of hell as a place of cruel punishment that I objected to.

 

[Bradski]

Lot of “me” and “I” benefits listed as reasons for acting “sociablelq.” If only you mentioned just one reason as acting for “her” sake. Perhaps you did but failed to note so in your comment.

I’m not sure you are following the argument. There are a lot of first person pronouns in there because it emphasises my point. Which was…

…these inbuilt emotions prompt us in ways that both improve our personal sense of worth AND benefit society. That is, doing something that you feel is right. Everyone feels good doing what they feel is right. Everyone feels discomfort in doing things they know to be wrong.

Have you never wondered why?

 

[tonyrey]

Hell is a punishment I consider cruel and unusual and a just God should not inflict such punishment, in my opinion.

You are assuming that those who commit atrocities throughout their lives are never responsible for what they do nor is their punishment self-inflicted as the result of their diabolical behaviour which has made them detested and isolated…

 

[tonyrey]

What! If this is true, then I’ve been deceived for years! I’ve been told that if I don’t obey God’s rules, then God is the one who will throw me in the fiery depths of hell. If however, I’m responsible for my own punishment, then I will simply choose not to punish myself with hell.

It’s not so easy as that! It depends on the way we choose to live - for ourselves or for others… God gives us the rules but we are the ones who determine our destiny.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hell appears to bother me as much as your average Catholic – that is, not in the slightest.

So, let’s see…

… you say hell isn’t a threat (above) because it doesn’t bother you or the average Catholic “in the slightest.”

And yet…

A threat you say? See, I knew hell was a threat.
…

Because you just called them a threat. Twice. In the same sentence…

Strike fear! And not just of earthly punishments but even after death! Which I guess means…hell.

I personally have no problem with the word. The question should be directed to PR and Peter. They are determined to avoid it.

I think you are confusing the issue precisely because you are equivocating (again) between two meanings of the word “threat.”

You keep insisting that Hell is a “threat” in the sense that God uses it as a menacing eventuality that he will bring to bear upon those who don’t toe the line.

It is that use of the word that I object to, but yet you keep exhuming it, all the while denying that Hell is any real threat in the second sense, to wit: something which is potentially harmful to one’s well-being.

Personally, I would argue that Hell, is indeed a “threat” in that second sense, but would avoid using the word in the first sense. Hell is, indeed, a “threat” in the sense of something which may severely compromise one’s personal integrity and well-being, but that would be because willfully committing evil acts does indeed harm one’s personal integrity and well-being. However, Hell is merely the full realization of the harm that one has wrecked upon himself by embracing evil. Ergo, Hell, as the realization of the effects of one’s own evil ways upon oneself does constitute a “threat” to oneself, as a matter of natural consequence.

I’m not sure why. None of you believe there is the slightest chance of you ending up there. No-one does. But just try to find someone who will admit to that.

Actually, you’d be wrong about that. I have inflicted enough “hell” upon myself by my own willful choices in the past that I am quite sure that Hell exists as a state of being and that by doing evil we can put ourselves in that state irrevocably. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarily. God could provide a temporary punishment

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of infinitude.

A punishment of, say, 1000 years, followed by infinity in bliss is analogous (but ineffectually so) to punishing a 10 year old boy for 3 seconds (You have to wait out here while the rest of us go in and enjoy the park!) for pushing his brother before he gets to spend the rest of the day in Disney World.

or an eternal punishment that does not involve burning people alive.

Not sure what this means? How does hell burn people alive?

 

[Cheiron]

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of infinitude.

A punishment of, say, 1000 years, followed by infinity in bliss is analogous (but ineffectually so) to punishing a 10 year old boy for 3 seconds (You have to wait out here while the rest of us go in and enjoy the park!) for pushing his brother before he gets to spend the rest of the day in Disney World.

A 1000 years is not a long time compared to infinity, but on it’s own it’s a pretty long time.

Not sure what this means? How does hell burn people alive?

I hoped nobody would notice. Burning people while they’re conscious would be a better way of phrasing it.