The Fear of Hell

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Having read the Pensees I’m not sure that having someone read the entirity of the work would be significantly more convincing. But then again what it takes to convince someone may vary significantly from one person to another. There’s no literary magic bullet of convinction.

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.

…if we grant several assumptions such as that God caring about whether or not someone is convinced of it’s existence, that we survive our deaths, that there’s a post death sorting of what ever survives death, and a number of other things. Not every one that believes there is a God makes these same assumptions. There’s already been significant talk of one of the god-concepts that doesn’t make these assumptions (in deism).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Having read the Pensees I’m not sure that having someone read the entirity of the work would be significantly more convincing. But then again what it takes to convince someone may vary significantly from one person to another. There’s no literary magic bullet of convinction.

…if we grant several assumptions such as that God caring about whether or not someone is convinced of it’s existence, that we survive our deaths, that there’s a post death sorting of what ever survives death, and a number of other things. Not every one that believes there is a God makes these same assumptions. There’s already been significant talk of one of the god-concepts that doesn’t make these assumptions (in deism).

I agree that different atheists will have different impressions of the strength of Pascal’s argument. Part of the limitation of Pensees is that it is written in fragments and not at all complete since Pascal died before he completed this ambitious project he had set in motion.

Deism is not really a religion;it is a philosophy. So of course without revelations to consider it goeth where the winds of reason bloweth.

Not that deism is at all reasonable. I simply cannot fathom the existence of a God so powerful as to create a universe and then take no further interest in his creation. Nor can I fathom why people want to believe in such an impersonal God.

 

[rinnie]

Possibly more ambiguous as those are also metaphors for knowledge levels, emotional climates, and other things.

This tells me that you use “wrong” the same as “sin.” Not everyone does. I feel that for messages that are intended to also speak to non-religious members of an audience the word “sin” might not be very persuasive. When speaking to other Catholics or people that share some other similar religious disposition it will probably be effective enough though.

And some tell me that “sin” can be actions that someone performs that are a violation of divine commands regardless of knowledge of if those actions being a violation Ex: even if someone doesn’t know that masturbation, sex without a marriage license or using contraception is a violation of a what Yahweh wants and if the person does not have bad feelings about these he/she may still considered by some to be committing a “sin.” If you speak to the masturbator, the committed unmarried sexually active couple, so on and find out their attitudes you might find that they are perfectly fine with it. Even if they are religious individuals they might not feel that it’s “wrong.” By the definition you’ve provided above these people have not sinned. But according to the usage of the word “sin” by some others they have.

I think you’ll get better milage with moral terms than theological terms. I’m not telling you to not associate the two with each other if you already do. But consider that others may not share that association. The word “sin” has been used to label a lot of different things.

My sister and I went into a church by invitation. She was seen as sinful because her head was not covered. I Was seen as sinful because my hair was longer than some prescribed length. They informed us of our sins without actually convincing us of them. At another church I heard the pastor lamenting over the sins that people were committing today such as murder, theft, and women wearing pants and makeup. Also exercising certain words within one’s vocabulary is by some considered “sinful” especially certain words of germanic origins.

See how this word “sin” has been used? Do you see how what is seen as “sinful” doesn’t always coincide with what one sees as “wrong”? How do you think someone that has encountered various usages of the word reacts to being told that something is sinful?

More related to this thread, “hell” seems to be described in lots of various ways too. The conditions that will get someone to hell also vary depending on religious disposition. I’m not sure if hearing of the variations of Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, ταρταρῶ, and so on strengthens or weakens the concept. I will say though that I’m glad that hellfire sermons are not as common in my area as they used to be. To hear someone sounding angry and yelling about torture for over an hour is anything but an edifying experience.

Not really. In order to be guilty of sin, you have to be aware that you are sinning.

I agree with you, I myself do not see where yelling and screaming to someone over hellfire is doing any good. Jesus never taught like that either.

Sin does coincide with what one see’s as wrong. Not others just oneself.

Like if you know it is against the word of God to have sex with another mans wife, and do so anyway it is a mortal sin. If you want to have sex with another mans wife, but don’t its venial sin.

But if you can really say one is ignorant to the issue, then God would not hold it against the person.

It is not considered a sin in the CC to have long hair, or not cover ones head.

Reminds me of the Joke, A kid wanted a car for his 18 birthday. His Dad said yes, if you do 3 things, cut your hair, dress better and quit wearing sandals and read the bible.

So the kid did, so he says to his Dad, Jesus had long hair, and he wore sandals also. The Dad said yes he did, and he walked everywhere also.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Like if you know it is against the word of God to have sex with another mans wife, and do so anyway it is a mortal sin.

Just for clarity I want to point out I’ve not said anything about another man’s wife. Only of two people that are committed to each other but not married that are sexually active (ex: a boyfriend and a girlfriend)

It is not considered a sin in the CC to have long hair, or not cover ones head.

I’m aware. This is considered a sin in some forms of Christianity but not all. The applicability of the word to certain actions seems to be dependent on the denomination.

 

[rinnie]

When religious people do it, it carries a weight and has an influence like nobody else’s projection.

I really don’t know what you consider religious people. Could you define?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Not that deism is at all reasonable. I simply cannot fathom the existence of a God so powerful as to create a universe and then take no further interest in his creation.

I can, but we’ve discussed this before with John Conway’s Game of Life and how it’s not uncommon for Computer Scientist to make simulations and let them run to termination without intervening, only watching…

 

[fred_conty]

Originally Posted by rinnie
Like if you know it is against the word of God to have sex with another mans wife, and do so anyway it is a mortal sin. If you want to have sex with another mans wife, but don’t its venial sin.

It is a mortal sin to WANT to have sex with another man’s wife…a sin is always in the heart of man before he carries it out.

But if the thought occurs to him and he resists it, then it is an act of virtue.

And if we think in our conscience it is a mortal sin to have long hair, then we must follow our conscience unless we have spritual advice to the contrary overriding our conscience.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I can, but we’ve discussed this before with John Conway’s Game of Life and how it’s not uncommon for Computer Scientist to make simulations and let them run to termination without intervening, only watching…

John Conway would not be the way I would model a deity.

Moreover, I should think that any computer generated program normally requires attention to how well it is working, a little tweek here and there, a little intervention where necessary if not everywhere.

I’m not so aware of a purely “watching” God, and I don’t see why that is a requirement of God for the deist.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I should think that any computer generated program normally requires attention to how well it is working, a little tweek here and there, a little intervention where necessary if not everywhere. . .

Not to mention the electricity, the computer itself, time, a mind to understand. Unlike the virtual, each person is a new being, irreplaceable. Many John Conway’s; only one shouts, “ouch!” when he stubs his toe, or is loved by his wife.

 

[BarbTh]

Pascal’s wager and the odds might be of some interest to a gambling person - but not for a person seeking Truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Who gets to decide what other people’s needs are?

All of us - unless we are inhuman…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

John Conway would not be the way I would model a deity.

For a deistic God, yes.

Moreover, I should think that any computer generated program normally requires attention to how well it is working, a little tweek here and there, a little intervention where necessary if not everywhere.

You said something like this before. But there is no intervention after initialization. Only observation. Such programs run until a terminal state (when everything dies) or until they reach a stable state (static). The interest is to see how they develop without interaction.

I’m not so aware of a purely “watching” God, and I don’t see why that is a requirement of God for the deist.

Deist are not “requiring” that God be non interactive. They just don’t think that God is interacting.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[inocente]

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!

Once again, a parable is a didactic tale intended to provide instruction. If you believe, for instance, that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a historical account rather than a teaching story which Jesus made up then you really need to find out what courses your church provides and go on them.

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.

I do use the bible and have been on bible courses, and in many discussion groups and lectures, and have a number of bible commentaries.

Whereas I’ve asked you previously a number of times what education and resources you have for reading scripture, and you’ve never answered. If you’ve been on any courses then they couldn’t have been much good if you walked away thinking parables actually happened.

Anyway, I’ve not even given my personal belief as I wanted you to read that article, but yet again you’ve just assumed.

If you think the doctrine of hell is more important than to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself, then that’s called legalism, something which made Jesus angry.

 

[inocente]

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.

Why is this so difficult? Please take a moment to pause and realize I’m not arguing with your answer.

Your answer is wonderful, it’s tremendous, it’s a brilliant answer, it could not be any better.

Only trouble is, it’s the answer to a question I didn’t ask.

I’m asking a different question. My question is: Why does the English CCC have two different wordings for the Apostles’ Creed rather than one?

 

[tonyrey]

Once again, a parable is a didactic tale intended to provide instruction. If you believe, for instance, that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a historical account rather than a teaching story which Jesus made up then you really need to find out what courses your church provides and go on them.

I do use the bible and have been on bible courses, and in many discussion groups and lectures, and have a number of bible commentaries.

Whereas I’ve asked you previously a number of times what education and resources you have for reading scripture, and you’ve never answered. If you’ve been on any courses then they couldn’t have been much good if you walked away thinking parables actually happened.

Anyway, I’ve not even given my personal belief as I wanted you to read that article, but yet again you’ve just assumed.

If you think the doctrine of hell is more important than to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself, then that’s called legalism, something which made Jesus angry.

The doctrine of hell is the corollary of the commandment to love God.

 

[rinnie]

Why is this so difficult? Please take a moment to pause and realize I’m not arguing with your answer.

Your answer is wonderful, it’s tremendous, it’s a brilliant answer, it could not be any better.

Only trouble is, it’s the answer to a question I didn’t ask.

I’m asking a different question. My question is: Why does the English CCC have two different wordings for the Apostles’ Creed rather than one?

I guess the answer would be on who is telling it. Like if the weather man says its going to rain today. One may say it is going to rain. The other may say precipitation.

But anyway what the Church teaches is the righteous who were held were in the bosom of Abraham who were to be delivered when Christ decended into hell. His death was of no avail to the damned.

Hell has many different names for it. Greek= Hades, Hebrew=Sheal. In the English language there are many different words we can use for hell.

As I stated before it depends on how the person chooses to us it.

I may say to you I am going to pick up my Mother from the airport tomorrow. And may say to the same person I am going to pick up Mom. To my daughter, you grandmother, etc.

 

[rinnie]

Just for clarity I want to point out I’ve not said anything about another man’s wife. Only of two people that are committed to each other but not married that are sexually active (ex: a boyfriend and a girlfriend)

I’m aware. This is considered a sin in some forms of Christianity but not all. The applicability of the word to certain actions seems to be dependent on the denomination.

I did not mean you sister either, and had no idea about her situation. I was just giving you an example of sin.

Here is a better example.

I know, and this bothers me, but my Son has sex out of marriage. That is considered a mortal sin in our faith.

All I can do is pray somehow God sends him the right person, who he can get married to, and confess his sin, get married and get righteous with God.

For now all I can do is pray, and rely on the mercy and grace of God to help him see this.

 

[rinnie]

It is a mortal sin to WANT to have sex with another man’s wife…a sin is always in the heart of man before he carries it out.

But if the thought occurs to him and he resists it, then it is an act of virtue.

And if we think in our conscience it is a mortal sin to have long hair, then we must follow our conscience unless we have spritual advice to the contrary overriding our conscience.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

You are right, but I was taught the difference is as long as you do not act on it rather in your mind, or physical and pray the thought does not have to be mortal.

I was taught it was only mortal if you (continued the act in your mind). If that makes sense.

 

[rinnie]

Just for clarity I want to point out I’ve not said anything about another man’s wife. Only of two people that are committed to each other but not married that are sexually active (ex: a boyfriend and a girlfriend)

I’m aware. This is considered a sin in some forms of Christianity but not all. The applicability of the word to certain actions seems to be dependent on the denomination.

I understand. And if you believe it is wrong to have long hair, and you are doing it to sin against God it is a sin, even if its not your denomination. (do you understand what I am saying)?

That is why sin is tricky and different for everyone.

 

[rinnie]

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.”

You don’t have to be religious to know what peoples needs are. If so there would not be so many people who have to go to therapy to find out what they want or need or their problems are.

And its usually something they know but cannot face up to, or something that is so bad they convince themselves they have forgotten it and its eating them alive.

The problem is knowing what people need or want, its watching them deny it and destroy themselves and suffer avoiding it.