The Fear of Hell

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, I’m sure that God created hell, since he created all things.

I haven’t got God all figured out, but the parts of God that the GOSPELS HAVE FIGURED OUT SUIT ME JUST FINE. Hell is in the gospels.

The “Good News” concerns heaven. Those who don’t like the “Good News” choose hell.

Since you say, “Yes, I’m sure that God created hell, since he created all things.”, are you saying that God created evil?

And since you also say, “I haven’t got God all figured out, but the parts of God that the GOSPELS HAVE FIGURED OUT SUIT ME JUST FINE. Hell is in the gospels.”

The word “gospel” literally means “Good News” and in the Gospel of St. John, John 12:32: which is, "And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

Do you think that Jesus means what He said?

Jesus was lifted up physically in the crucifixion and spiritually in the Resurrection and Ascension, do you think that Jesus will really draw EVERYONE to Himself, somehow or another, even if we do not know the details?

Jesus said to Peter, “Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH and the GATES OF THE NETHERWORLD shall not prevail against IT”.

I believe that Jesus was trying to tell us something there and that Jesus won the victory totally against the NETHERWORLD, not just for some but for ALL.

There is a lot said in the bible, some of which seems to be contradictory on the surface, do you think that it is contradictory or that it could somehow be “complementary” even if we do not know just how this could come about, in other words, we do not know all of the details?

 

[tonyrey]

It is undoubtedly inconsistent with Christ’s teaching that God is a loving Father.

Disagreement doesn’t imply everyone is mistaken! If it did it would mean non-believers are also misguided. The truth is not found in negativity…

The most trustworthy interpretation of reality is based on Christ’s own words which are so profound and revolutionary they are hardly fictitious. Even Dawkins admits His moral teaching is way ahead of its time. It is the only rational foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Otherwise they are no more than human conventions that are ignored with impunity and horrific consequences like the Holocaust. That is why the doctrine of hell is not an idle fantasy but a vital warning that evil is a harsh reality we have to confront for our own sake and the future of the entire planet.

 

[tonyrey]

Disagreement doesn’t imply everyone is mistaken! If it did it would mean non-believers are also misguided. The truth is not found in negativity…

The most trustworthy interpretation of reality is based on Christ’s own words which are so profound and revolutionary they are hardly fictitious. Even Dawkins admits His moral teaching is way ahead of its time. It is the only rational foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Otherwise they are no more than human conventions that are ignored with impunity and horrific consequences like the Holocaust. That is why the doctrine of hell is not an idle fantasy but a vital warning that evil is a harsh reality we have to confront for our own sake and the future of the entire planet.

Pascal remarked:

“Greatness, wretchedness. The more enlightened we are the more greatness and vileness we discover in man. Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness… What sort of freak then is man! How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, the glory and refuse of the universe!”

equip.org/article/greatness-and-wretchedness/#christian-books-2

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe that Jesus was trying to tell us something there and that Jesus won the victory totally against the NETHERWORLD, not just for some but for ALL.

Yes, he did win the victory for all, but not all will celebrate the victory.

Do you think everyone goes to heaven?

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.”

 

[inocente]

I have never heard it said or written that God “takes joy over seeing the horrors of those in hell” but I have seen it said that people do and I could be wrong but I believe it is in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and maybe among others.

Intrigued, I googled it and you’re right, Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven:

*“I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.” - newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm *

 

[tonyrey]

Intrigued, I googled it and you’re right, Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven:

“I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.” - newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm

You are distorting the meaning of that passage by taking it out of its context:

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus** the saints** will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
Reply to Objection 1. To rejoice in another’s evil as such belongs to hatred, but not to rejoice in another’s evil by reason of something annexed to it. Thus a person sometimes rejoices in his own evil as when we rejoice in our own afflictions, as helping us to merit life: “My brethren, count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations” (James 1:2).
Reply to Objection 2.** Although God** rejoices not in punishments as such, He rejoices in them as being ordered by His justice.
Reply to Objection 3**. It is not praiseworthy in a wayfarer to rejoice in another’s afflictions as such:** yet it is praiseworthy if he rejoice in them as having something annexed. However it is not the same with a wayfarer as with a comprehensor, because in a wayfarer the passions often forestall the judgment of reason, and yet sometimes such passions are praiseworthy, as indicating the good disposition of the mind, as in the case of shame pity and repentance for evil: whereas in a comprehensor there can be no passion but such as follows the judgment of reason.

The alternative is to believe those guilty of atrocities should get off scot-free and not be confronted with all the gratuitous suffering they have inflicted on others. In other words all punishment is vindictive and should be abolished for once and for all…

 

[tonyrey]

I have never heard it said or written that God “takes joy over seeing the horrors of those in hell” but I have seen it said that people do and I could be wrong but I believe it is in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and maybe among others.

Someone, at least one, posted some sites concerning some people’s thoughts about heaven and hell and unless I misunderstood what I read, it said that one of the “joys” of heaven is to see the “horrors” of those in hell and this is with the thought that this hell is for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and… , not that this hell has a reason for being other than the “horrors and the foreverness” of it.

Please refer to my previous post.

 

[tonyrey]

The alternative is to believe those guilty of atrocities should get off scot-free and not be confronted with all the gratuitous suffering they have inflicted on others. In other words all punishment is vindictive and should be abolished for once and for all…:ehh:

It should be taken into account that the suffering of the wicked is self-imposed. Our virtues bring their own reward and our vices incur their own punishment. In plain language we all get what we deserve in the long run. Nietzsche was right in that respect:

But the worst enemy you can meet will always be yourself

* [Thus Spoke Zarathustra](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/196327) *

 

[inocente]

You are distorting the meaning of that passage by taking it out of its context:

I didn’t comment of whether I think he is right or wrong. You might like to read the whole of the section:

In art. 1 he concludes that “Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”

In art. 2 he concludes that those in heaven will have no basis for pitying those in hell: “But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory will have no pity on the damned.”

And in art. 3 that those in heaven will rejoice at the suffering: “And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.”

I’ve still not commented on whether I think he is right or wrong, but either way that’s what he says, make of it what you want.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Disagreement doesn’t imply everyone is mistaken!

Correct. Though incompatibilities in what various groups assert does imply that not all of them are correct. I am no much interested in sorting them out. But I find many of the views to be interesting.

The most trustworthy interpretation of reality is based on Christ’s own words

I won’t argue with you there. I also won’t agree with you since we already don’t have agreement on some unspoken premises of the above assertion.

Pascal remarked

Pascal makes many assertions and remarks. Some I find interesting. Some not so much.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Intrigued, I googled it and you’re right, Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven:

“I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.” - newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm

This is what Aquinas says in Article 3.

*I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly. *

Not exactly a prescription for sadistic joy as you predictably seem to imply.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, he did win the victory for all, but not all will celebrate the victory.

Do you think everyone goes to heaven?

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.”

Question: How many would you say are completely sheep and how many are completely goat according to these verses?

Have you always done what is right?

Have you always done what is wrong?

Has anyone ever only done what is wrong or only done what is right?

Thinking about it, it seems that ALL of us are part sheep/part goat according to what is mentioned in this section of Matthew 25.

The Catholic Church prays for God to have Mercy on ALL and I believe God will have Mercy on ALL.

Actually, I believe that ALL will receive both Justice and Mercy.

I believe that God wins and satan loses and that a tie is absolutely and utterly unacceptable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, I believe that ALL will receive both Justice and Mercy.

While we live, yes. Not so for those in hell. They will receive justice, but not mercy.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You are distorting the meaning of that passage by taking it out of its context:

The alternative is to believe those guilty of atrocities should get off scot-free and not be confronted with all the gratuitous suffering they have inflicted on others. In other words all punishment is vindictive and should be abolished for once and for all…

As far as, “You are distorting the meaning of that passage by taking it out of its context:”

What is the “distortion”?

Is the distortion that while we are still on this earth we are to care for all but after we get to heaven we are to gloat over some?

Wasn’t there someone named Jesus that was crucified on a cross?

Didn’t this Jesus reportedly say while He was on that cross, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”?

Not “Father, forgive some of them” but “Father, forgive them”.

Which or what kind of atrocity, do you think that Jesus did not take to the cross?

Or the “alternative” is to believe that Jesus really did do what Jesus is reported to have done on the cross.

I believe that there is a difference between being punished out of love and being punished out of blood-sucking vindictiveness, do you think/believe that there could be this difference?

“When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

While we live, yes. Not so for those in hell. They will receive justice, but not mercy.

So, do you think that the Catholic Church should stop praying for Mercy for ALL?

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is what Aquinas says in Article 3.

*I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly. *

Not exactly a prescription for sadistic joy as you predictably seem to imply.

I don’t know if it is just Thomas Aquinas or if it is others that seems to look at it as plain old gloating rather than “sadistic joy” but for someone who has an idea of hell, it is just plain old sickening to think of anyone looking at a fellow being made in the “Image and Likeness…” in a situation like this and to seemingly, not care.

Isn’t it nice that the “joy” of those in heaven is only indirectly, rather than directly, enhanced by the “horrors” of those in hell, I still find the “indirectly enhanced” quite sickening.

 

[davidv]

So, do you think that the Catholic Church should stop praying for Mercy for ALL?

No. Nor was it implied by the post this was in response to.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know if it is just Thomas Aquinas or if it is others that seems to look at it as plain old gloating rather than “sadistic joy” but for someone who has an idea of hell, it is just plain old sickening to think of anyone looking at a fellow being made in the “Image and Likeness…” in a situation like this and to seemingly, not care.

Isn’t it nice that the “joy” of those in heaven is only indirectly, rather than directly, enhanced by the “horrors” of those in hell, I still find the “indirectly enhanced” quite sickening.

Personally, I do not take sadistic pleasure in the thought of those suffering in hell, as you seem to imply that some people do. So you can save your self righteousness for those strange creature who do.

I do take pleasure in the thought that God metes our his justice as he will, and that some souls are justly in hell, and that we should not grieve over God’s justice.

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.”

 

[tonyrey]

As far as, “You are distorting the meaning of that passage by taking it out of its context:”

What is the “distortion”?

Is the distortion that while we are still on this earth we are to care for all but after we get to heaven we are to gloat over some?

Wasn’t there someone named Jesus that was crucified on a cross?

Didn’t this Jesus reportedly say while He was on that cross, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”?

Not “Father, forgive some of them” but “Father, forgive them”.

Which or what kind of atrocity, do you think that Jesus did not take to the cross?

Or the “alternative” is to believe that Jesus really did do what Jesus is reported to have done on the cross.

I believe that there is a difference between being punished out of love and being punished out of blood-sucking vindictiveness, do you think/believe that there could be this difference?

“When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself”.

The distortion lies in the bald statement that “Aquinas argues that seeing hell increases the joys of those in heaven” which gives the impression they take sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others whereas he clearly explains that to do so is evil:

Reply to Objection 1. To rejoice in another’s evil as such belongs to hatred, but not to rejoice in another’s evil by reason of something annexed to it. Thus a person sometimes rejoices in his own evil as when we rejoice in our own afflictions, as helping us to merit life: “My brethren, count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations” (James 1:2). .

To disagree implies we are not only sadistic but also masochistic! Only hedonists deny that afflictions have any value.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t comment of whether I think he is right or wrong. You might like to read the whole of the section:

In art. 1 he concludes that “Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.”

In art. 2 he concludes that those in heaven will have no basis for pitying those in hell: “But in the future state it will be impossible for them to be taken away from their unhappiness: and consequently it will not be possible to pity their sufferings according to right reason. Therefore the blessed in glory will have no pity on the damned.”

And in art. 3 that those in heaven will rejoice at the suffering: “And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.”

I’ve still not commented on whether I think he is right or wrong, but either way that’s what he says, make of it what you want.

Please refer to my previous post on this thread.