The Fear of Hell

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Why are you so belligerent toward Pascal? Pascal never used the word “pretend.” That is your word and you are denigrating Pascal as if it were his.

Stop “pretending” you understand Pascal when you clearly don’t.

According to Pascal, “Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We were talking about Pascal’s Wager, which is addressed to the strong atheist.

You’re earlier statements refer to “the atheist” without distinction. Just making sure that you understand that people that wear that label don’t necessarily declare that there is no “God”

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.

Well, depends…

The phrase “believe in” is often used as a conflation of several dispositions. Something believed to be true, something believed to exist, something thought to be beneficial to a person, something thought to be the embodiment of one’s values, so on. To avoid that ambiguity I’m going to go with the “thought to exists” meaning to the exclusion of all of those other meanings.

If you were to say that everything around us is the product of processes in nature you might find people that agree with that. Now if you were to try to declare that these natural processes will collectively be referred to as “God” you might encounter objections among these same people. There do exists people that refer to these processes as “God” (pantheism, or to some degree panentheism). In this case the objection seems to be to the label and not to the existence the entity to which the label is being applied.

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

I think that’s true of everyone.

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

Some also do not compatible concepts.

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

I totally agree. Someone becoming convinced of a God isn’t necessarily becoming convinced of something compatible with what Pascal had in mind.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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

What it says is, “lead all souls to heaven,
especially those who have most need of Your Mercy”

All, not some.

It doesn’t tell Jesus just how to accomplish this but it does ask Jesus to do this and as the second part says, “especially those who have most need of Your Mercy”.

Seems to me that it is so clear and simple and to the point that some are willingly blind to what it so simply asks.

One does not need to believe that God is capable of accomplishing this but one should not say that it does not say what it so simply says.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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

I agree that it should be “self evident” but if you read some of the posts, it doesn’t seem to be “self evident” to all, that is why I am saying it.

For that matter, some of those who believe in the “Trinity” have quite a different “conception” of God that some others who believe in the “Trinity”.

So as I alluded to in another post, “believing in God”, can mean pretty much anything.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why are you so belligerent toward Pascal? Pascal never used the word “pretend.” That is your word and you are denigrating Pascal as if it were his.

Stop “pretending” you understand Pascal when you clearly don’t.

According to Pascal, “Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.”

As far as, “Stop “pretending” you understand Pascal when you clearly don’t.”, I never pretended to “understand Pascal”, as a matter of fact it has only been in the last couple of years that I have even heard of Pascal’s Wager.

A definition of “Pascal’s Wager”:

1. the argument put forth by Blaise Pascal that it is in one’s best interest to believe in the existence of God, as it is a rational assumption and does no harm, and the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise.

I don’t know what this may sound like to others but to me, it sounds like trying to get over on God by “believing” even if one does not believe.

If this is not “pretending” than what is it?

And for that matter, what “God” is Pascal saying “that it is in one’s best interest to believe in”?

Seems as if Pascal is speaking of the God of the bible but to many, “God”, is not necessarily the God of the bible.

I am giving my opinion to what “Pascal’s wager” and its definition means to me, if to you it is “belligerent” and “denigrating”, than so be it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

.

I am giving my opinion to what “Pascal’s wager” and its definition means to me, if to you it is “belligerent” and “denigrating”, than so be it.

Being open to God is far from pretending there is a God. As a Catholic, you do believe that, don’t you?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Being open to God is far from pretending there is a God. As a Catholic, you do believe that, don’t you?

I think being open to God is a good thing.

I think that not believing in God and pretending to believe in God is not being open to God.

I think that if one did not believe in God and were honest with oneself about it while being open to the possibility of there being a God and even so far as putting it into their own words is what I think being open to God is about, not pretending to believe just because one might not go to the place that so many seem to think that all of those that don’t believe in lockstep with themselves will go.

Isn’t something like that called “hedging one’s bets”?

I, and this is only my opinion, think that one should be not just open but honest and admit that one does not believe if in fact that is the case.

As a human being who happens to be Catholic, I believe that all should be honest with God whether they believe that God Is or do not believe that God Is.

I also believe that the word “catholic” means universal for more than the reason that some seem to think it means universal.

It also seems to me, my opinion, that there are “Catholics” that look down on other denominations for whatever reason rather than thinking/believing that when Jesus said, “I Am the vine, you are the branches”, not branch, that He just might have been saying more than some wish that He had been saying.

Plenty of things that God has said thru others and thru Himself in the Incarnation have more than one meaning.

 

[davidv]

What it says is, “lead all souls to heaven,
especially those who have most need of Your Mercy”

All, not some.

It doesn’t tell Jesus just how to accomplish this but it does ask Jesus to do this and as the second part says, “especially those who have most need of Your Mercy”.

Seems to me that it is so clear and simple and to the point that some are willingly blind to what it so simply asks.

One does not need to believe that God is capable of accomplishing this but one should not say that it does not say what it so simply says.

Why are you focusing on the all part while apparently ignoring the leading part? We all have the freedom not to follow.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why are you focusing on the all part while apparently ignoring the leading part? We all have the freedom not to follow.

Actually, I am focusing on both the all and the leading part rather than either/or.

The One Who is referred to in the word “lead” is Jesus and the ones spoken of in the “all” is humanity.

Yes, “We all have the freedom not to follow”.

Lots of people just might be “underestimating” God in that God just might have “many ways” to convince people to follow without resorting to “forcing them”.

God Is God and we ain’t and as it is written, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”, God could have many Thoughts about Ways to “convince people without force” that we would never conceive of.

 

[LovesArmor]

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?

I would say how could a vindictive God send his son to die for our salvation, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Sounds like a rather gracious and loving God to me, once someone knows this it would be rather difficult to go to hell, and i think those that do choose so

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would say how could a vindictive God send his son to die for our salvation, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Sounds like a rather gracious and loving God to me, once someone knows this it would be rather difficult to go to hell, and i think those that do choose so

Welcome to CATHOLIC ANSWERS!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I, and this is only my opinion, think that one should be not just open but honest and admit that one does not believe if in fact that is the case.

As a human being who happens to be Catholic, I believe that all should be honest with God whether they believe that God Is or do not believe that God Is.

But here’s the rub. You can’t be honest and admit that you believe God does not exist. What evidence would warrant that belief? There is none. The decision not to believe in God is not based on evidence, but rather on arrogant and willful desire to deny God. So there is no honesty there. Stop calling it honesty when it is really acting like a fool. The atheist is fooling himself, so please stop calling that an honest act.

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

 

[tonyrey]

I would say how could a vindictive God send his son to die for our salvation, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Sounds like a rather gracious and loving God to me, once someone knows this it would be rather difficult to go to hell, and i think those that do choose so

1. “vindictive” begs the question.
2. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit act in unity not like human persons. Jesus **chose **to die for our salvation.
3. There is plenty of evidence in this world that the lust for power and independence can transform a person into an evil monster.
4. Do you reject the reality of evil?
5. Do you believe in justice?

 

[rstrats]

re: “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

That would be a strong atheist. I think the greater percentage of atheists simply say that they do not have a belief in a supreme being.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

re: “The fool in his heart says there is no God.”

That would be a strong atheist. I think the greater percentage of atheists simply say that they do not have a belief in a supreme being.

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

Clearly a person who does not believe in a supreme being lives as if there is no God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]I think that not believing in God and pretending to believe in God is not being open to God…]

But here’s the rub. You can’t be honest and admit that you believe God does not exist.

It’s worth pointing out you two are not necessarily talking about the same position. Tom is talking about some one that hasn’t yet been convinced of the existence of God. Some one with this stance doesn’t necessarily have the same stance that Charles is referencing, which is some one that believes there are no Gods (strong atheist). While the stance that Tom has described can be inclusive of a strong atheist position it can also include the other non-theistic positions (ignostic, agnostic atheist, pantheist, panentheist, so on).

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

There’s a difference. To give you a material example If a garage has a closed door and no windows and I asked you “Are you convinced that there is a pink Cadillac in that garage?” you might not have that conviction. But that’s not the same as declaring that there is no Cadillac in that garage.

Clearly a person who does not believe in a supreme being lives as if there is no God.

Not necessarily. Remember that a person that holds a belief of something they call “God” may not believe it to have the same attributes that you believe your God to have. The things that you believe your God to care about and respond to might not be the same that they see their God to care about or respond to. Some people see God as a being that doesn’t get involved in human affairs.

Though the behaviour of a person that lives as if there is no God might not be distinguishable much from a person that does believe there is a God that lives within the same culture.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would say how could a vindictive God send his son to die for our salvation, and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Sounds like a rather gracious and loving God to me, once someone knows this it would be rather difficult to go to hell, and i think those that do choose so

That might not have the impact that you think. Remember that the person to which you would be directing this doesn’t necessarily think in the same context that you do and might not be interpreting the above from a Catholic perspective. I don’t think non-religious people generally put high value in ritualistic sacrifices. And the declaration itself might not make clear to someone why a sacrifice is necessary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There’s a difference. To give you a material example If a garage has a closed door and no windows and I asked you “Are you convinced that there is a pink Cadillac in that garage?” you might not have that conviction. But that’s not the same as declaring that there is no Cadillac in that garage.

In the case that you have no conviction, you would have to be agnostic about the Cadillac.

There is certainly a difference between agnostic and atheist, but the difference is negligible, to say the least. The agnostic, when pressed, will trot out the arguments against God while ignoring the arguments in favor of God. For example, Clarence Darrow’s essay “Why I Am an Agnostic.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In the case that you have no conviction, you would have to be agnostic about the Cadillac.

Correct, and many atheist are agnostic atheist.

The agnostic, when pressed, will trot out the arguments against God while ignoring the arguments in favor of God.

If you hard press someone you can invoke a lot of opposing remarks. Try conversing and listening with the person instead so that you can get uninhibited honest expressions instead of statements of opposition.

 

[rstrats]

Charlemagne III,
re: “In the case that you have no conviction, you would have to be agnostic about the Cadillac.”

True. And because he is not convinced that a Cadillac is in the garage, he is also an acadillacinthegarageist.