The Fear of Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, I see your problem. You imagine that there’s some rulebook in the sky which says belief in God requires belief in hell. Where in heaven’s name did you get that rule?

I joined this thread to post an article from SEP which I thought you may find interesting. You’ve given no indication that you’ve bothered to read it. Do so and it will disabuse of your naive notion that all theists must believe whatever you believe.

Of course they don’t.

As I think I’ve told you many times before, the basic principles of the Baptist faith are freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of religion. We shall not be slaves to rulebooks invented by men, Baptists have no creed. We accept Christ as our personal savior, we are subjects of Christ alone, and in Christ we have our freedom.

Although if you look way back in my posts, I did say the Apostle’s Creed publicly here on some forgotten thread. I’ve never seen you do that, and it might be an idea if you repeated that Creed to yourself, as you appear to think it includes belief in hell. It does not. - vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P13.HTM

Give some indication that you have read and understood the article and I’ll discuss my beliefs further, but not before, I didn’t join the thread to play games. 😉
Since you decided to quote the Apostles’ Creed on hell and said you had no problem reciting it before…

The Holy See
Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

ARTICLE 5
“HE DESCENDED INTO HELL. ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN”

631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles’ Creed confesses in the same article Christ’s descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:
Code:
Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.477
Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487

Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He descended into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm
 
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

THE CREDO

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm
 
You are still not getting it.

We damn ourselves to eternal torment because we could have chosen eternal joy and peace.
Only Catholics are on principle able to make such a choice to begin with.

To fear hell, one has to believe that it exists, and that heaven exists, and that going or not going in one or the other is entirely and solely a matter of one’s choice.

In other words, you’re either talking only about Catholics; or you’re taking a lot for granted about other people.
Yes, we have a hidden God, but he loves to play hide-and-seek.
Does this god also play gotcha?
We believe God made us in his image and likeness
Yes, you believe that. Many people don’t.
 
I posted an article which explains why some Christians do not believe in hell. According to the article, those who say that some will forever remain separated from God must necessarily believe either that God does not love everyone equally (that He has a chosen elect), or else that He will forever fail to win over some people (that His love is not omnipotent).
At this point, I tend to think that the doctrine of heaven and hell has primarily didactic purposes and applications, but that it isn’t about ontological realities that one could readily understand.
 
Typical religious epistemic supremacism …
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Of course I believe my religion is superior to other religions and worldviews. In fact, I believe that it is so far superior as to negate all other potential worldviews. If this were not the case, I would not belong to my religion.

Being that I have made the informed decision to be Catholic, it stands to reason that I would actively promote Catholicism as the only absolutely true religion. To claim that my belief in the superiority of my faith somehow undermines my argument is to deny the basic principle of absolute truth. Either something is correct, or it is wrong. Given that religions are a set of beliefs which are either true or false, I must make the determination of which faith presents nothing but truth. Having made that decision, it then becomes my obligation to promote that faith out of love for my brother and out of my desire to see them living in Truth. If I were to not promote what I believe to be true simply because someone disagrees with me, I would be doing them, myself, and my faith a disservice.

That aside, OldCelt has specifically stated that he doesn’t think an all knowing God would have created hte world as it is. I am simply pointing out that that assertion is based on nothing more than his personal opinion. He is starting from a personal assumption of how it should be, whereas the Church begins from where it actually is. One of these is grounded in assumption whereas the other is grounded in reality.
 
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Of course I believe my religion is superior to other religions and worldviews. In fact, I believe that it is so far superior as to negate all other potential worldviews. If this were not the case, I would not belong to my religion.

Being that I have made the informed decision to be Catholic, it stands to reason that I would actively promote Catholicism as the only absolutely true religion. To claim that my belief in the superiority of my faith somehow undermines my argument is to deny the basic principle of absolute truth. Either something is correct, or it is wrong. Given that religions are a set of beliefs which are either true or false, I must make the determination of which faith presents nothing but truth. Having made that decision, it then becomes my obligation to promote that faith out of love for my brother and out of my desire to see them living in Truth. If I were to not promote what I believe to be true simply because someone disagrees with me, I would be doing them, myself, and my faith a disservice.
Hear, Hear! 👍
 
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
For purposes of interpersonal communication, it sure is a bad thing.
The only position that you allow for the other person is to either *unquestioningly *agree with you and submit to you, or to leave.
It’s a communication stopper.
Of course I believe my religion is superior to other religions and worldviews.
Believing that one’s religion is superior to other religions and worldviews is not the same epistemic supremacism, though.
Being that I have made the informed decision to be Catholic
I seriously doubt that. A person would need to be omniscient and epistemically autonmous, independent even from God to do that.
To claim that my belief in the superiority of my faith somehow undermines my argument is to deny the basic principle of absolute truth. Either something is correct, or it is wrong.
Strawman.
Given that religions are a set of beliefs which are either true or false, I must make the determination of which faith presents nothing but truth.
Are you omniscient? Are you epistemically autonmous?

Bear in mind that by Catholic doctrine, a person cannot be epistemically autonmous to begin with.

If God made you, you do not have epistemic autonomy. Only uncreated beings can have epistemic autonomy.
That aside, OldCelt has specifically stated that he doesn’t think an all knowing God would have created hte world as it is. I am simply pointing out that that assertion is based on nothing more than his personal opinion.
And yet all along, you have been arguing for what is actually just your opinion, except that you attempt to elevate your opinion to the level of Absolute Truth.
He is starting from a personal assumption of how it should be, whereas the Church begins from where it actually is. One of these is grounded in assumption whereas the other is grounded in reality.
How do *you *know how things really are?
 
Both you and Prodigal are completely missing my point. I acknowledge that this world is our creation. I accept it as it is and even find great beauty a midst the confusion. My point is that an all-knowing (past, present future) etc., etc., God wouldn’t intentionally create such a mess…and according to you, he infallibly knew all this in advance.
Funny how you seen to know what God would or would not do. How do you know that to begin with Man didn’t create this mess, and that it is a consequence of mans actions.

And on the other side of the coin, what if God did, create the mess that is. How could a human mind ever be able to define the mind of the Divine.

My personal belief is the reason the world is such a mess, physical and mentally is simple, the sin of Man, Rather it be greed, hate, power, I could go on and on.

But on the other hand maybe God does level a state or country, and maybe just maybe its not what you see.

You see humans being killed leveled, but what I see is the innocent the good not even being in these disasters, I see them looking up looking straight into the eyes of the most loving wonderful Father in the world. And him reaching down and taking them up into paradise, Ending all of their suffering in this world.

But the moral of the story is this, you seem to be angry because you cannot know the mind of the Divine and can only see God on a human level.

You have 2 choices, to pray for the grace of God to find contentment in what you do not understand, or stay angry and continue to condemn what is so far above your level of understanding, and will always be.
 
For purposes of interpersonal communication, it sure is a bad thing.
The only position that you allow for the other person is to either *unquestioningly *agree with you and submit to you, or to leave.
It’s a communication stopper.
I neither demanded submission, nor demanded that they leave. I was making an argument for why their world view is flawed. That is the entire point of debate. I do not expect to change their minds, at least not often, but that’s not going to stop my from arguing against them
Believing that one’s religion is superior to other religions and worldviews is not the same epistemic supremacism, though.
ep·i·ste·mic
ˌepəˈstemik,-ˈstē-/Submit
adjective
of or relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Supremacism is the world view that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.
As stated before, I neither claimed the desire, ability, or right to rule over others. If you are reading that from my post then you are gravely mistaken about my intent or purpose in posting. The fact that I believe someone is wrong does not mean that I have the right to lord it over them, or that it makes them inferior to myself. However, not having that right, and not believing myself superior, is not going to prevent me from trying to correct their error.
I seriously doubt that. A person would need to be omniscient and epistemically autonmous, independent even from God to do that.
Then you have never, in the whole of your life, made an informed decision about anything. Period.

Meanwhile, in reality, I’ll work from the fact that an informed decision is one which has had a great deal of time, effort and study put into it before the decision has been made. I have spent several years learning, studying and debating, and arrived at the decision to be Catholic. That’s as informed a decision as is possible in our state as mere mortals.
Strawman.
Not a strawman. You statement insinuated that I am wrong to denounce oldcelt’s views simply because I have absolute faith in my own views, and believe that everyone would be better off sharing them. If that were the case it would undermine the very nature of debate and argument, since if you don’t believe in something you can’t effectively argue in favor of it. Furthermore, the purpose of debate and argument is to arrive at the Truth. If it is wrong to denounce someone who I believe to be adhering to falsehood, then that implies that either seeking Truth is pointless, or that Truth does not exist, which denies the reality of absolute Truth.
Are you omniscient? Are you epistemically autonmous?
No, I am not, which is completely irrelevant to the question. It is a matter of making a decision. To me, the Church presents the most compelling case for being the Church of God. You may arrive at a different conclusion. At that point, one of us is wrong and the other is right. If we were to never act on something or reach a conclusion about something simply because we cannot know it, 100%, then we would literally be incapable of ever doing anything or making decisions about anything, because as mortal we do not have omniscience. This would make our existence utterly pointless, and completely prevent any form of development or progress.
Bear in mind that by Catholic doctrine, a person cannot be epistemically autonmous to begin with.
Correct, I cannot know everything through my own right because I am a limited person. This is why I must rely on the work of others in helping me arrive at a conclusion. You do the same ting with every decision you make as well, and there is nothing wrong with that. I couldn’t even know about the existence of God if He didn’t chose to reveal Himself, and I’m fine with that. I don’t have to know everything to be able to make a decision; I just have to have put in the proper diligence in trying to understand something, arrive at a decision about that something, and then live my life according to that decision. That is how humanity has always operated, for better or for worse.
If God made you, you do not have epistemic autonomy. Only uncreated beings can have epistemic autonomy.
As stated, epistemic autonomy is unnecessary. No one in the history of creation, outside of Jesus Christ according to my faith, has ever had episitim autonomy; that has never prevented anyone from being able to draw their own conclusions about an issue.
And yet all along, you have been arguing for what is actually just your opinion, except that you attempt to elevate your opinion to the level of Absolute Truth.
No, I have no attempted to elevate my opinion to absolute truth. I have stated my opinon in the belief that it is correct, just as old celt has. I have only pointed out that while his opinion takes its beginning in an assumption, the Church takes her beginning in what is actually present in the world. My argument is that a position based in reality is superior to a position based on a perceived should.
How do *you *know how things really are?
Observation and study. The Church has been at this for 2000 years, significantly more if you include our Jewish roots. That’s a lot of time to gather data and understanding.
 
I neither demanded submission, nor demanded that they leave. I was making an argument for why their world view is flawed. That is the entire point of debate. I do not expect to change their minds, at least not often, but that’s not going to stop my from arguing against them
Debate, huh?
As stated before, I neither claimed the desire, ability, or right to rule over others. If you are reading that from my post then you are gravely mistaken about my intent or purpose in posting. The fact that I believe someone is wrong does not mean that I have the right to lord it over them, or that it makes them inferior to myself. However, not having that right, and not believing myself superior, is not going to prevent me from trying to correct their error.
I suppose you don’t see the inconsistency in what you’re saying …
Meanwhile, in reality, I’ll work from the fact that an informed decision is one which has had a great deal of time, effort and study put into it before the decision has been made. I have spent several years learning, studying and debating, and arrived at the decision to be Catholic. That’s as informed a decision as is possible in our state as mere mortals.
Your kind of reasoning is standard retrospective justification.

First you accepted Catholicism, and then you found reasons that justify this acceptance.
(For someone who was born and raised Catholic, such a process seems to be a given anyway.)
(Even though some of those reasons are primarily about saving face and looking rational.)
Not a strawman. You statement insinuated that I am wrong to denounce oldcelt’s views simply because I have absolute faith in my own views, and believe that everyone would be better off sharing them.
You insinuate that.
If that were the case it would undermine the very nature of debate and argument, since if you don’t believe in something you can’t effectively argue in favor of it. Furthermore, the purpose of debate and argument is to arrive at the Truth. If it is wrong to denounce someone who I believe to be adhering to falsehood, then that implies that either seeking Truth is pointless, or that Truth does not exist, which denies the reality of absolute Truth.
Again, debate. Not discussion.
No, I am not, which is completely irrelevant to the question. It is a matter of making a decision. To me, the Church presents the most compelling case for being the Church of God. You may arrive at a different conclusion. At that point, one of us is wrong and the other is right. If we were to never act on something or reach a conclusion about something simply because we cannot know it, 100%, then we would literally be incapable of ever doing anything or making decisions about anything, because as mortal we do not have omniscience. This would make our existence utterly pointless, and completely prevent any form of development or progress.
/…/
I don’t have to know everything to be able to make a decision; I just have to have put in the proper diligence in trying to understand something, arrive at a decision about that something, and then live my life according to that decision. That is how humanity has always operated, for better or for worse.
You seem to think that mundane reasoning is suitable to make decisions about supramundane things.
I couldn’t even know about the existence of God if He didn’t chose to reveal Himself, and I’m fine with that.
There you go.
As stated, epistemic autonomy is unnecessary. No one in the history of creation, outside of Jesus Christ according to my faith, has ever had episitim autonomy; that has never prevented anyone from being able to draw their own conclusions about an issue.
Such conclusions are then only accidentally correct, at best.
My argument is that a position based in reality is superior to a position based on a perceived should.
That’s a truism, obviously, and truisms don’t help ahead.
How do you know how things really are?
Observation and study. The Church has been at this for 2000 years, significantly more if you include our Jewish roots. That’s a lot of time to gather data and understanding.

You didn’t answer my question.

Everyone observes and studies, but they come to different conclusions.
 
Debate, huh?
Yes, debate. The art of using logical discourse to determine which given outlook is more likely.
I suppose you don’t see the inconsistency in what you’re saying …
There is no inconsistency. Believing my argument is correct and theirs is wrong is not the same thing as believing myself superior to them.
Your kind of reasoning is standard retrospective justification.
First you accepted Catholicism, and then you found reasons that justify this acceptance.
(For someone who was born and raised Catholic, such a process seems to be a given anyway.)
(Even though some of those reasons are primarily about saving face and looking rational.)
Incorrect. I had all but abandoned my faith and then returned to it after looking at alternatives.
You insinuate that.
I may have read into your post, that is true, however, if that’s not what was intended then I don’t really see a point in your post to begin with.
Again, debate. Not discussion.
Yes… debate… not discussion… given that this thread is a debate it seems logical that I would be debating
You seem to think that mundane reasoning is suitable to make decisions about supramundane things.
It’s the best we have, and is far superior to doing nothing, since you can never progress by doing nothing.
Such conclusions are then only accidentally correct, at best.
Not if God has chosen to reveal the Truth to us. At that point, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that he has made it possible to arrive at truth through study and debate.
That’s a truism, obviously, and truisms don’t help ahead.
Umm… could you explain why it’s a bad thing to thing we should start with observable reality? Isn’t that what people generally claim that religious people don’t do in an attempt to discredit them?
You didn’t answer my question.
I may not have answered it to your satisfaction, but that doesn’t make my response any less of an answ
Everyone observes and studies, but they come to different conclusions.
Some of which are wrong, and some of which are right. In order to progress we have to make decisions and live by them.

I have to get to work now, and won’t be able to respond in length until later.
 
Yes, debate. The art of using logical discourse to determine which given outlook is more likely.
No. Debate is about winning, in the presence of a judge.
There is no consistency. Believing my argument is correct and theirs is wrong is not the same thing as believing myself superior to them.
In the case of epistemic issues, this is precisely what it is.
Incorrect. I had all but abandoned my faith and then returned to it after looking at alternatives.
A temporary lapse. For some people, it lasts a few minutes, for some hours, for some days, for some months or years. But it’s a temporary lapse nonetheless.
I may have read into your post, that is true, however, if that’s not what was intended then I don’t really see a point in your post to begin with.
I’m pointing out an inconsistency in your line of reasoning, and how come it cannot be convincing for others.
Yes… debate… not discussion… given that this thread is a debate it seems logical that I would be debating
Where is it stated that it is to be a debate and not a discussion?
It’s the best we have, and is far superior to doing nothing, since you can never progress by doing nothing.
An argument from limited means, urgency and despair?
Not if God has chosen to reveal the Truth to us. At that point, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that he has made it possible to arrive at truth through study and debate.
If.
Umm… could you explain why it’s a bad thing to thing we should start with observable reality? Isn’t that what people generally claim that religious people don’t do in an attempt to discredit them?
You’re glossing over all problems of epistemology …
I may not have answered it to your satisfaction, but that doesn’t make my response any less of an answ
You certainly replied, thank you. Answered - not so much.
 
As I think I’ve told you many times before, the basic principles of the Baptist faith are freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of religion. We shall not be slaves to rulebooks invented by men, Baptists have no creed. We accept Christ as our personal savior, we are subjects of Christ alone, and in Christ we have our freedom.

Although if you look way back in my posts, I did say the Apostle’s Creed publicly here on some forgotten thread. I’ve never seen you do that, and it might be an idea if you repeated that Creed to yourself, as you appear to think it includes belief in hell. It does not. - vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P13.HTM
It’s good to know that Baptists are allowed to repudiate not only the teaching of hell in the Apostle’s Creed, but also the teaching on hell by Christ himself, so long as they follow their conscience instead of the biblical rulebook. It’s good to know Baptists have no allegiance to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Bible unless they like the passages they happen to be reading at the moment.

Matthew 25:44-46

"Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Do you like that passage? :confused:
 
Sometimes we hear unbelievers say they cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare for us a place of everlasting suffering. Such a God is petty and vindictive. How would you answer this critique of the Christian hell? :confused:
Back to the question the Church defines hell as total separation from God. It Is when we choose to break off all contact with him, and want nothing to do with him what so ever.

People in this world as you posted cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare us a place of everlasting suffering. But People blame God because they don;t want him, and refuse to repent and follow him.

It really does not make any sense does it.

How can God give you free will to accept him or reject him, and if you choose to reject him, what other alternative is there for him, then to prepare a place for eternity without him if that is what you choose?

Hell is a persons own choice.

I personally do not see any difference between hell on earth or in eternity, except in eternity you cannot change your mind, or more or less will not.

People amaze me how they cannot image God creating a place without him, and yet choose to life without him in this world.
 
Fantastic irony. 😉
Back to the question the Church defines hell as total separation from God. It Is when we choose to break off all contact with him, and want nothing to do with him what so ever.

People in this world as you posted cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare us a place of everlasting suffering. But People blame God because they don;t want him, and refuse to repent and follow him.

It really does not make any sense does it.

How can God give you free will to accept him or reject him, and if you choose to reject him, what other alternative is there for him, then to prepare a place for eternity without him if that is what you choose?

Hell is a persons own choice.

I personally do not see any difference between hell on earth or in eternity, except in eternity you cannot change your mind, or more or less will not.

People amaze me how they cannot image God creating a place without him, and yet choose to life without him in this world.
Did you read my earlier reply here in this thread?
 
Free will with handcuffs on is no free will at all. The creator MUST be totally out of the equation for true free will to exist.
This is interesting. Free will cannot exist unless God is totally out of the equation. So God cannot give us free will. Who did free will come from the goody man?

I guess no one can have free will in this world either then. So I have a child and when he hits 21 I tell him he has free will to do as he pleases. So now that I give him free will to do as he pleases I cannot exist in his life. Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top