The Fear of Hell

[Tom_Baum]

It certainly is a belief, and a belief for which there is no evidence whatever.

I would say that the only “evidence” that I have that God Is, is the fact that I met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Before these things happened, I believed in God but I had “no evidence”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I, personally, believe that God would rather have honesty than a phony, baloney, "I believe in You God, even though I don’t believe in You, since I have been told that it is better to pretend to believe in You than to be honest with You when I say that I don’t believe in You.

Seems to me that “Pascal’s Wager” is nothing more than lying about one’s belief for one’s own personal benefit if one’s belief is wrong, is this what it seems to anyone else?

Question for you or anyone else: If one does not believe in God, should one be honest about it or should one lie about it?

Pascal does not say we should lie about our beliefs to God. He says we should act as if we believed, and then belief will grow in us. If we never act as if we believe, how would we ever learn to believe?

If you don’t act as if someone might love you, how are you ever going to find out if that Someone does?

If you act as if no one loves you, how are you ever going to be open to the possibility that Someone might love you … and that this Someone might even exist who loves you?

Tom, it is the atheist who fools himself that there is no God, because he has no evidence whatever to prove his so-called conviction. You will find atheists who even admit this. So why can you say they are honest when they don’t have an iron-clad claim on the truth and they are just believing what it suits them to believe?

As a Catholic, do you dispute the teaching of the Catechism that atheism is a mortal sin?

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms 14:1

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would say that the only “evidence” that I have that God Is, is the fact that I met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Before these things happened, I believed in God but I had “no evidence”.

Exactly. You lived as though it were true, and gradually you came to understand that it is true.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He says we should act as if we believed, and then belief will grow in us. If we never act as if we believe, how would we ever learn to believe?

Isn’t that self deception?

Tom, it is the atheist who fools himself that there is no God

Is anyone in this declared that there is no God? I don’t think so. I may have missed it. I’ve not encountered a lot of strong atheist in these forums.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Isn’t that self deception?

No. Pascal merely agrees with what St. Augustine said:

“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand.”

It’s called giving God the benefit of the doubt. Who deserves it more?

 

[onenow1]

onenow1,
re: “Some thoughts : While this is not a proof for God’s existence, it does demonstrate the seriousness of the consequences of either belief or unbelief which a reasonable person ought to carefully consider.”

And once the unbeliever considers it, then what?

God will search him out !

God Bless

 

[rstrats]

onenow1,

re: “God will search him out !”

And then what?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

"Charlemagne III:

It’s called giving God the benefit of the doubt. Who deserves it more?

First to highlight a statement to which you gave no response:

Isn’t that self deception?

Is anyone in this declared that there is no God? I don’t think so. I may have missed it. I’ve not encountered a lot of strong atheist in these forums.

I don’t think that you’ll find (m)any people in this thread that will state that there is no possibility of there being some other entity that played a role in our creation. We are past that. Most of the disagreement is in the attributes attributed to that entity; the word “God” is used to refer to a spectrum of concepts (remember Ignosticism). In consideration of these sets of attributes that are included or excluded from various god-concepts the benefit-of-a-doubt approach doesn’t seem to be very useful in sorting through them. But some part of explaining this feels like getting back on the same track that oldcelt had been on in which the emphasis seemed to be on disagreement in the concept of God.

When the word “God” is used for various entities and proposed entities, some personal, some non-sentient, some interactive, some only observing, some apathetic, and so the declaration that someone believes there is a “God” isn’t by itself meaningful without some further knowledge of the attributes that the person ascribes to their god-concept.

 

[opusAquinas]

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?

We rebelled against Love and Justice. We are twice in debt for our existence and our rebellion. But praise be Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Salvation. Our Everything.

Unbelievers cannot respect the idea because they do not appreciate the horrendous nature and consequence of sin. The unbeliever does not understand the absolute goodness of God and the horrendous nature of our rebellion. We are petty and vindictive. We deserve hell for our disgusting act of rebellion against all that is Good. Justice requires it. But praise be the Mercy of our God! Praise be our Lord Jesus Christ forever and ever.

 

[onenow1]

onenow1,

re: “God will search him out !”

And then what?

It is up to him.

God Bless

 

[rstrats]

onenow1,

re: It is up to him."

Up to him (the non-believer) to do what?

 

[onenow1]

onenow1,

re: It is up to him."

Up to him (the non-believer) to do what?

To understand truth, that God is truth, that we did not create ourselves; and like our mother and father on earth, deserve our love how much more does God, deserve our trust and love that sustains all of us ?

God Bless

The definition of ‘truth’ is ‘opposite of error’. Truth means it is conformable to fact. It is correct. Truth in action, is when the human conscience agrees with the intellect. Truth is ‘ONE’. There can be only one truth, Jn 17:17-23. Any variation in the one truth is not truth at all, but error.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you prepared to live with a child you have cared for who rejects you?

“think” is the key word! It is not absolutely impossible.

Doesn’t filial ingratitude have any effect on an ungrateful child?

It sure does. But it wouldn’t affect my feelings as a parent.

Maybe I am just more of a magnanimous parent than your particular idea of god.

It is the effect on the ungrateful child that is significant even if one doesn’t believe in God. It is unrealistic to deny that we have some responsibility for our attitudes to others. At the psychological level we get what we deserve. A selfish person alienates others and is bound to be dissatisfied because the world is not egocentric!

Isn’t there any truth in the Greek concept of Nemesis or the Indian doctrine of Karma - that our virtues bring their own reward and our vices incur their own punishment?

You really want to bring karma into this? Karma - as in “karma and reincarnation” and Hinduism?
Do you even know the role of karma in monotheistic Hinduism??

The basic truth that our virtues bring their own reward and our vices incur their own punishment is the issue at stake. Do you accept it or reject it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is anyone in this declared that there is no God? I don’t think so. I may have missed it. I’ve not encountered a lot of strong atheist in these forums.

We were talking about Pascal’s Wager, which is addressed to the strong atheist. I don’t know if there are any strong atheists in this thread, but they can still be mentioned whether they are or they aren’t because we are talking about to whom Pascal was addressing his Wager.

Have a misread your concern?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Exactly. You lived as though it were true, and gradually you came to understand that it is true.

This is NOT what I said and I did not pretend to believe it to be true, I did believe it but I did NOT “know” it to be true.

I would say that there is a difference between believing something and pretending to believe it and “pretending to believe something” is what it seems that “Pascal’s Wager” is to me, although I could be wrong.

I did NOT “gradually” come “to understand that it is true”, it was quicker than instantaneous that I “knew” when I realized that it was God the Father in my heart.

It was “gradual”, I would say a couple of hours maybe, that I came to realize that it was God the Father in my heart.

Actually, when God revealed Himself to me, I wasn’t asking for anything of that nature, what I was asking for was mercy.

As it is written, “God works in mysterious ways”.

I would say that “God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof”.

There are some who do not believe in God that are doing God’s Will in their life better than some who do believe in God.

Question: If one were going to pretend to believe, why not go a little farther and “pray” to God for “belief”?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Isn’t that self deception?

Is anyone in this declared that there is no God? I don’t think so. I may have missed it. I’ve not encountered a lot of strong atheist in these forums.

This is merely my opinion but I think that there are some “atheists” that just do not believe in anyone else’s conception of God.

There are people’s “conception” of God that I don’t believe it either.

“God” is a generic word and not all of those who believe in God, have the same “conception” of God.

Even many who agree on the same “name” of God, do not have the same “conception” of God.

Not all people who believe in God believe that God is a Trinity and that Jesus is God-Incarnate, there are those that consider themselves Christian that do not believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate.

Even though this is a Catholic forum, people should realize that believing in God, does not necessarily equate to believing in the Trinity.

 

[rstrats]

Tom Baum,
re: “…If one were going to pretend to believe…”

How is it possible to “pretend” to believe something. What would one’s actual state of mind be with regard to the truth of an issue?

 

[Tom_Baum]

We rebelled against Love and Justice. We are twice in debt for our existence and our rebellion. But praise be Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Salvation. Our Everything.

Unbelievers cannot respect the idea because they do not appreciate the horrendous nature and consequence of sin. The unbeliever does not understand the absolute goodness of God and the horrendous nature of our rebellion. We are petty and vindictive. We deserve hell for our disgusting act of rebellion against all that is Good. Justice requires it. But praise be the Mercy of our God! Praise be our Lord Jesus Christ forever and ever.

Ever heard of the “O my Jesus” prayer?

O my Jesus,
forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
lead all souls to heaven,
especially those who have most need of Your Mercy.

Do you believe that what the “O my Jesus” prayer is praying for will come to be?

Do you hope that what the “O my Jesus” prayer so simply says will come to be?

Jesus did teach us to pray for “Our Father’s Will to be done…”, didn’t He?

 

[davidv]

Ever heard of the “O my Jesus” prayer?

O my Jesus,
forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
lead all souls to heaven,
especially those who have most need of Your Mercy.

Do you believe that what the “O my Jesus” prayer is praying for will come to be?

Do you hope that what the “O my Jesus” prayer so simply says will come to be?

Jesus did teach us to pray for “Our Father’s Will to be done…”, didn’t He?

The prays say “lead” not drag. Some sheep do not follow the Shepherd.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Even though this is a Catholic forum, people should realize that believing in God, does not necessarily equate to believing in the Trinity.

This is self evident … so why do you have to say it?