The Fear of Hell

[rstrats]

Charlemagne III,
re: “Not right now, because I have consciously made another choice.”

And I’m asking you to change that choice. If beliefs can be obtained by simply consciously choosing to have them, then you should have no problem in doing that.

re: “It is not possible to choose to believe and to not believe at the same moment. Right?”

That is correct. But I’m not asking you to do that.

 

[PRmerger]

But I think PR asked earlier for an answer to the question: Does God exist. I would say (being very specific) that I didn’t know. But if the question was ‘do you believe in God’, I would say emphatically no.

Since you don’t know, it is incumbent upon you to investigate all of the arguments for God’s existence, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

It is totally incorrect to assume that God prefers believers to non-believers or even cares whether you believe in him or not. The criteria for whether someone enters the kingdom of heaven is very simple - it is clearly specified in Mathew 25:31-46, and that does not mention anything about what you believe.

Firstly, how do you know that Christ really said this?

When the Christ said that the only way to the Father is through him, he did not mean that only Christians or even only believers get to meet the Father.

This is very Catholic!

But if someone thinks that the poor do not deserve some sort of help (public or private), then I am afraid, they are at the grave risk of ending up in hell (just read those verses carefully).

This, too, very Catholic!

 

[PRmerger]

And throwing yet more mud into the water, I do class myself on occasions as such, but that generally refers to my objection to religious incursions into secular matters, not necessarily connected with my lack of belief in God.

Wouldn’t it be more connected to your personal disagreement with what the religious institution is prohibiting (or perhaps permitting)?

I mean, really, you’re not opposed to religious incursions into secular matters when the institution recommends feeding the poor and clothing the hungry, right?

 

[OneSheep]

I am not quite sure how a thread about ‘the Fear of Hell’ has deteriorated into a discussion on atheism (which I thought was not even allowed).

But just to add my 2-bits on both subjects and get back on topic:

It is totally incorrect to assume that God prefers believers to non-believers or even cares whether you believe in him or not. The criteria for whether someone enters the kingdom of heaven is very simple - it is clearly specified in Mathew 25:31-46, and that does not mention anything about what you believe.

When the Christ said that the only way to the Father is through him, he did not mean that only Christians or even only believers get to meet the Father.

Thank you, openmind, this is also what I was taught. According to our faith, the non-Christian who meets the Father does so through Christ.

At the appropriate time, the Christ will take everyone who is qualified to the Father - that includes non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, socialists, communists - whoever you assume will not make it. The criteria is simple and complete as specified in Mathew 25:31-46, and whether you are a strong or weak believer or a non-believer is immaterial.

It would be in error, though, to think of “being with the Father” as only an after-life condition. When Christ refers to “eternal life”, He is referring to a life that includes life on Earth. A person closed-minded to the verse you quoted, living in contempt of the downtrodden, keeping his own self righteously justified by “I am at least better than those ignorant people” is not living the best of life, the eternal life. The call to eternal life, in my understanding, is somewhat similar to the Buddhist tradition of non-attachment, and the (If I remember right) Hindu practice of (later in life) shedding all the trappings. The eternal life also involves the incorporation of virtues and, bottom line, allowing Love to transform us.

But if someone thinks that the poor do not deserve some sort of help (public or private), then I am afraid, they are at the grave risk of ending up in hell (just read those verses carefully).

A person living in contempt of anyone is not living the call to include others and forgive. A person whose look toward self, God, and other centers on the word “deserve” is essentially a machine, categorizing people according to some criteria. This is contrary to a call to holiness, to wholeness, so no, such a person is not yet living a fully eternal life. On the other hand, the verse you mentioned is a call to incorporate service to the downtrodden into our conscience, to severely address the parts of ourselves that hesitate to help those in need.

Since we all are neither 100% sheep or goat, our experience of God in the afterlife is still going to depend on the mercy of God, and by our faith God is omnibenevolent.

Those who do not realize that God is omnibenevolent are those who love others conditionally and project a god who also loves conditionally. These people remain fearing hell (if they believed in hell) and fearing a wrathful God. Such fear is the opposite of faith, and is not what could be described as living an eternal life.

Thanks for your post on the thread.

 

[Bradski]

Since you don’t know, it is incumbent upon you to investigate all of the arguments for God’s existence, don’t you think?

Apart from the time when I was a nominal Christian – you could almost say a cultural Christian (my wife used to put it down as her religion on any number of forms that asked for it because her attitude was: ‘hey, that’s how we were brought up’), I have spent not an inconsiderable time doing a considerable amount of investigation. I would suggest that I know more about the arguments for (and against) God’s existence than most Christians. I don’t just read the case against (Dennet, Hitchens et al). People like Feser and Trent Horn get to say their piece as well (this Kindle business is a curse –I’m buying books faster than I can read them: ‘hey, that looks interesting’ – click).

But as I have said before, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I became. The two sides for and against have had ample opportunity to put their cases forward and the jury, after very careful and deliberate consideration, has returned. And the verdict, reached on the basis that it is beyond reasonable doubt, is in.

Wouldn’t it be more connected to your personal disagreement with what the religious institution is prohibiting (or perhaps permitting)?

Yes.

I mean, really, you’re not opposed to religious incursions into secular matters when the institution recommends feeding the poor and clothing the hungry, right?

No.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey,
re: “That question is based on the absurd presupposition that unless choices are made at every moment they don’t exist!”

If beliefs can simply be engendered by consciously choosing to have them, then why do you say that they can’t be engendered at any moment?

You are begging the question!

Can you consciously choose to believe things?

]When we are reasonable we can consciously choose to believe or not to believe according to the available evidence. Otherwise we are deluding ourselves into thinking we are reasonable - and our conclusions are worthless…

 

[PRmerger]

I mean, really, you’re not opposed to religious incursions into secular matters when the institution recommends feeding the poor and clothing the hungry, right?

Heh. Clothing the naked is what I meant. Hungry people are in want of food. Not clothes. uch:

 

[PRmerger]

Apart from the time when I was a nominal Christian – you could almost say a cultural Christian (my wife used to put it down as her religion on any number of forms that asked for it because her attitude was: ‘hey, that’s how we were brought up’), I have spent not an inconsiderable time doing a considerable amount of investigation. I would suggest that I know more about the arguments for (and against) God’s existence than most Christians. I don’t just read the case against (Dennet, Hitchens et al). People like Feser and Trent Horn get to say their piece as well (this Kindle business is a curse –I’m buying books faster than I can read them: ‘hey, that looks interesting’ – click).

But as I have said before, the more I have looked into it, the less convinced I became. The two sides for and against have had ample opportunity to put their cases forward and the jury, after very careful and deliberate consideration, has returned. And the verdict, reached on the basis that it is beyond reasonable doubt, is in.

Really?

What argument do you find the most compelling?

Understood–you find none of them convincing.

But none of them have caused you to go…hmmm…?

 

[Bradski]

I think we’ve headed too far off topic. Maybe another thread on things that make atheists (and Christians) go ‘Hmmm’ might be appropriate.

In passing, if I had to pick something it would be fine tuning.

 

[PRmerger]

In passing, if I had to pick something it would be fine tuning.

Ok. Thank you. Noted.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I hope you aren’t expecting a logical response.

John

Because his remarks were not logical or convincing, he gets no response at all.

 

[rstrats]

tonyrey,

re: “You are begging the question!”

What is your question? I don’t see where you asked one.

re: “When we are reasonable we can consciously choose to believe or not to believe according to the available evidence.”

If beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them, then evidence is not necessary - prudent in certain cases, perhaps - but not necessary. But even if it were necessary, how would you know when you had it? What would be the state of your mind with regard to the truth about the issue in question the moment you realized that you had evidence?

 

[openmind77]

Thank you, openmind, this is also what I was taught. According to our faith, the non-Christian who meets the Father does so through Christ.

It would be in error, though, to think of “being with the Father” as only an after-life condition. When Christ refers to “eternal life”, He is referring to a life that includes life on Earth. A person closed-minded to the verse you quoted, living in contempt of the downtrodden, keeping his own self righteously justified by “I am at least better than those ignorant people” is not living the best of life, the eternal life. The call to eternal life, in my understanding, is somewhat similar to the Buddhist tradition of non-attachment, and the (If I remember right) Hindu practice of (later in life) shedding all the trappings. The eternal life also involves the incorporation of virtues and, bottom line, allowing Love to transform us.

A person living in contempt of anyone is not living the call to include others and forgive. A person whose look toward self, God, and other centers on the word “deserve” is essentially a machine, categorizing people according to some criteria. This is contrary to a call to holiness, to wholeness, so no, such a person is not yet living a fully eternal life. On the other hand, the verse you mentioned is a call to incorporate service to the downtrodden into our conscience, to severely address the parts of ourselves that hesitate to help those in need.

Since we all are neither 100% sheep or goat, our experience of God in the afterlife is still going to depend on the mercy of God, and by our faith God is omnibenevolent.

Those who do not realize that God is omnibenevolent are those who love others conditionally and project a god who also loves conditionally. These people remain fearing hell (if they believed in hell) and fearing a wrathful God. Such fear is the opposite of faith, and is not what could be described as living an eternal life.

Thanks for your post on the thread.

Very interesting thought that ‘being with the Father’ is not just an afterlife condition! I am not sure many Catholics will agree, though.

Actually I should have added that I don’t really believe in eternal hell for anyone - both hell and heaven are for a finite period of time. It is union with the Divine which is eternal. There is non reason to fear hell, but people ignore ‘the least of these’ at their own peril.

 

[tonyrey]

What is your question? I don’t see where you asked one.

“begging the question” doesn’t mean that!

re: “When we are reasonable we can consciously choose to believe or not to believe according to the available evidence.”

If beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them, then evidence is not necessary - prudent in certain cases, perhaps - but not necessary.

Choosing to believe doesn’t mean making instant decisions without considering the evidence. Do you think our beliefs or disbeliefs are thrust upon us whether we like it or not?

But even if it were necessary, how would you know when you had it?

How do we know anything about ourselves? By introspection and reasoning.

What would be the state of your mind with regard to the truth about the issue in question the moment you realized that you had evidence?

There are degrees of subjective certainty which vary during a person’s life. As with scientific discoveries people have moments of inspiration in which they discover the truth about moral and spiritual reality.

 

[PRmerger]

“begging the question” doesn’t mean that!

Indeed.

It’s common for folks to think that “begging the question” means “prompts the question” or “I must ask this question because it’s begging for an answer!”

However, as you know, “begging the question” is a philosophical term for assuming what it is you want to prove. Kind of like using circular reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed.

It’s common for folks to think that “begging the question” means “prompts the question” or “I must ask this question because it’s begging for an answer!”

However, as you know, “begging the question” is a philosophical term for assuming what it is you want to prove. Kind of like using circular reasoning.

I like the idea of a question begging for an answer. It gives the impression that reasoning has a life of its own - which is probably true. Sometimes a question leads to unforeseen conclusions…

 

[opusAquinas]

People don’t realize that they deserve hell.

They don’t see how far they have fallen from grace.

They don’t understand evil, their evil, sin and their fallen nature.

We rebelled against an all good and just God.

And the stain on our soul is deserving of hell.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

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?

Hell is the absence of God’s Love. God though His Wisdom, [He sees the bigger picture, we don’t], has assented to us having latitude of will, as such we can either embrace Him or reject Him. If we reject Him we in effect ‘out of choice’ cut ourselves off from God’s Love. All that is Good is actively supported by His Love. Hell is the opposite.

Those visionaries who claim to have witnessed Hell often say that if everyone had a preview of it, there would be no Hell or Satan ‘jokes’.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hell is the absence of God’s Love.

I conjecture that if one were to do a survey they would get very different results from the question of fear of hell v fear of God’s love. For the sake of avoiding confusion from other concepts and definitions of Hell I wonder if it would be better to directly refer to the absence of God’s love instead of hell when in dialog with those outside the Church.