The Fear of Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks to all who engaged me in this thread. I learn best when I am confronted with other thoughts. You who opposed my views did so with kindness, intelligence and dedication, and I thank you. I’m not leaving, just stepping out of the threads involving our ultimate destination rather than repeat myself constantly.

May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back,
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
The rains fall soft upon your fields and,
Until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

John
 
ThinkingSapien said:
When people say that do you think they are being literal or invoking an idiom? Is it really an indication that person prefers as you called it “an eternity in the absence of God.” I’ve gotten the feeling it is being said for the same reasons people use hyperbole.

Showing my age, but in the movie “Edward Scissors-hands” there was a part where Edward was electrocuted on live TV. A person not friendly to him said “I would give my left [insert organ name here] to see that again!” I didn’t take that to indicate that the character was willing to go into surgery to have a [insert organ name here]-ectomy for the opportunity of recreating the circumstances that lead up to the electrocutaion. Similarly, I don’t think that people that are saying they would rather go to hell are communicating that they would prefer to be in a place that matches what ever their hell-concept is (As these also differ significantly).
Click to expand...
Only God can tell whether or not a person really means this or not. However, if someone says something of this nature enough times it might make you wonder.

Pride is a powerful emotion. It is the emotion of Satan. There are people who are so filled with pride that they do hate life, do hate God and have no desire to be otherwise. If someone lives that life’s choice it could be that they will carry this hatred to the grave and feel no remorse or sorrow for their life’s choices.
 
inocente said:
Go back and read the Catholic Encyclopedia description of what a parable is. You cannot read parables literally, they didn’t happen, Jesus made them up for teaching. It would be really beneficial for you to go on a bible study course to learn these things, does your church not run one?
Click to expand...
So when Jesus said the following:

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.”

You don’t take this as a literal promise of our fate if we fail to minister to the needs of others? You don’t take the promise of heaven and the fear of hell as a legitimate spur to following Christ’s words? Then why do you even bother to read Christ’s words?

Sheesh! :eek:

I don’t think a Bible course would help you, since you seem to think you can always use the Catholic Encyclopedia or the Catechism of the Catholic Church to refute Catholic Doctrine, rather than the Bible itself, which is supposed to be your main source for Protestants. Why not use the Bible? But don’t use it to turn Paul against Jesus. That will not ever work for Protestants or Catholics.
 
Lucy107 said:
Who gets to decide what other people’s needs are?
Click to expand...
The people who are in need are usually obvious about their need. They are free to accept or reject our attention to their needs. Some will ask. Some will not ask. We might have to ask them if they are in need, based on their apparent need. Poor people, hungry people, people without sufficient clothes or shelter, beggars, etc.

Did you really have to ask that question? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Did you really have to ask that question?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because all too often, religious people will project onto others what their supposed needs are. As if religious people somehow eminently know what another person’s needs are; in fact, as if religious people somehow eminently know the other person better than that person knows themselves.

Of course, religious people can always argue that, given that they have the supreme religion, the supreme doctrine, they infallibly know what another person’s needs are, without needing to ask the other person anything.

As in, “You need Jesus. You need Jesus, whether you know it or not, whether you believe it or not.”
 
Lucy107 said:
Yes. Because all too often, religious people will project onto others what their supposed needs are. As if religious people somehow eminently know what another person’s needs are; in fact, as if religious people somehow eminently know the other person better than that person knows themselves.

Of course, religious people can always argue that, given that they have the supreme religion, the supreme doctrine, they infallibly know what another person’s needs are, without needing to ask the other person anything.

As in, “You need Jesus. You need Jesus, whether you know it or not, whether you believe it or not.”
Click to expand...
It is a very sense of incompleteness that make people needy, hence they had to get through.
 
oldcelt said:
Thanks to all who engaged me in this thread. I learn best when I am confronted with other thoughts. You who opposed my views did so with kindness, intelligence and dedication, and I thank you. I’m not leaving, just stepping out of the threads involving our ultimate destination rather than repeat myself constantly.

May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back,
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
The rains fall soft upon your fields and,
Until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

John
Click to expand...
Thanks for that lovely prayer, John, which is reciprocated. The last line is as close to God as one can get! 🙂
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You don’t have to believe in hell to fear that it exists. Many atheists on their deathbeds decide they had better fear it. Why would they decide suddenly to fear it if they hadn’t been aware all the while it was possible that it exists, and that they had better get their act together before they end up in the very place they said did not exist?

. 😉
Click to expand...
Probably because t hey never gave death a real thought that it deserves such as Pascel’s wager.

God Bless:)
 
Lucy107 said:
Yes. Because all too often, religious people will project onto others what their supposed needs are. As if religious people somehow eminently know what another person’s needs are; in fact, as if religious people somehow eminently know the other person better than that person knows themselves.

Of course, religious people can always argue that, given that they have the supreme religion, the supreme doctrine, they infallibly know what another person’s needs are, without needing to ask the other person anything.

As in, “You need Jesus. You need Jesus, whether you know it or not, whether you believe it or not.”
Click to expand...
Interesting. Only Religious people do this?
 
inocente said:
Well yes, you keep saying that but the apostles obviously didn’t speak in modern English, yet the English version of the CCC uses two different wordings, He descended to the dead and He descended into hell. Does the CCC say anywhere why it uses two different wordings? The Apostle’s Creed “is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer” (CCC 167), it’s purpose is to be completely unambiguous, so why are there two different wordings?
Click to expand...
You pretty much answered your own question, we have many versions of the same truth. Until you can show me how it is wrong to use different versions of the same truth, I cannot understand what we are arguing about.

Where is it ever taught that if exact words are not used, it is not the same exact truth.

Or unless you are asking why there is version of the Latin and Greek, and the answer would be because that is the 2 languages the English version was taken from.
 
Lucy107 said:
Yes. Because all too often, religious people will project onto others what their supposed needs are. As if religious people somehow eminently know what another person’s needs are; in fact, as if religious people somehow eminently know the other person better than that person knows themselves.

Of course, religious people can always argue that, given that they have the supreme religion, the supreme doctrine, they infallibly know what another person’s needs are, without needing to ask the other person anything.

As in, “You need Jesus. You need Jesus, whether you know it or not, whether you believe it or not.”
Click to expand...
What you say is true. The are people, religious and non-religious, who have no sense about what others need and take a “lady bountiful” approach to these supposed needs.

I don’t believe that this is what Christ is talking about. It would be real easy to use the above example as an excuse to ignore the real needs of people who are suffering. But it does take sensitivity, discernment and compassion. to serve others. First and foremost when one desires to help there must be a recognition of the dignity of our fellow human beings. It also takes a certain amount of skill in working with people. No one wants “lady or gentleman bountiful” to waltz into their lives with superior dispensing of blessings.

But, we can use this as an excuse to close our eyes to those who are suffering around us. A friendly smile, a gesture of kindness or a card of sympathy are day to day expressions of care. Donating to organizations that you trust is also a way of taking care of those in need.

P.S. When you witness the “lady bountiful” approach, more often than not, it is an example of poor training. We should not judge other people when they are really doing the best they can with what they have.
 
onenow1 said:
Probably because t hey never gave death a real thought that it deserves such as Pascel’s wager.

God Bless:)
Click to expand...
I don’t care to much about the logic of “Pascel’s Wager” . I know that it is used a lot to give people pause in their thinking but somehow it has always rubbed me the wrong way.

I think that the reason a person may choose to believe or not to believe comes from a much deeper place in their soul.
 
HelenRose said:
I don’t care to much about the logic of “Pascel’s Wager” . I know that it is used a lot to give people pause in their thinking but somehow it has always rubbed me the wrong way.

I think that the reason a person may choose to believe or not to believe comes from a much deeper place in their soul.
Click to expand...
That could be the initial reaction of a lot of people who already believe in God.

But I can’t think of a deeper place in the soul than the lust for immortality.

This is what Pascal understands all too well, and asks atheists to consider if they too can understand it. If they do not understand it, they have put their money on something else.

Maybe wine, women, and song?

That would rub me the wrong way. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
That could be the initial reaction of a lot of people who already believe in God.

But I can’t think of a deeper place in the soul than the lust for immortality.

This is what Pascal understands all too well, and asks atheists to consider if they too can understand it. If they do not understand it, they have put their money on something else.

Maybe wine, women, and song?

That would rub me the wrong way. 🤷
Click to expand...
It is something to think about. I am not sure just why the concept bothers me because I know that it is a starting point in a conversation with an atheist. People have been able to use this logic in their conversations with atheists but I know that I would not be able to use it effectively.
 
HelenRose said:
It is something to think about. I am not sure just why the concept bothers me because I know that it is a starting point in a conversation with an atheist. People have been able to use this logic in their conversations with atheists but I know that I would not be able to use it effectively.
Click to expand...
The wager seems to make a lot of assumptions about the god-concept in question. If a person to which the Wager is presented doesn’t share those same assumptions than the discussion may already be starting out with the people not agreeing on a premise or two of the discussion and the discussion might not lead them to the same conclusions.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
The wager seems to make a lot of assumptions about the god-concept in question. If a person to which the Wager is presented doesn’t share those same assumptions than the discussion may already be starting out with the people not agreeing on a premise or two of the discussion and the discussion might not lead them to the same conclusions.
Click to expand...
This is why the Wager cannot be dissociated from the entire Pensees, which consists of an attempt by Pascal to fit the Wager into a larger more comprehensive apologetic for Christianity. The wager taken by itself probably would not be entirely convincing to any atheist. It is not intended to prove the existence of God, which is what the atheist demands. But it is intended to prove that even if the existence of God cannot be proven, it is a poor bet to bet on the non-existence of God, which also cannot be proven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top