The Fear of Hell

[PRmerger]

And sometimes there are some things that we do know from first hand experience.

Not sure what your point is, vis a vis our discussion and your question: “ever been to hell?”

Surely you’re not saying that only people who have “been to hell” can talk about hell, right?

 

[PRmerger]

As I have said before, I do not know a lot but I do know a little and I do try to differentiate between “knowing” and “believing” since I happen to believe that the words, “know and believe”, do NOT mean the same thing, even though there seem to be quite a few who think that they do.

So let’s say there an oncologist who’s treating a patient with cancer. The oncologist has never had cancer.

Which is correct for the oncologist to say: I know that cancer is a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells…

OR

I believe that cancer a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells

 

[Tom_Baum]

Not sure what your point is, vis a vis our discussion and your question: “ever been to hell?”

Surely you’re not saying that only people who have “been to hell” can talk about hell, right?

Anyone can talk about it.

Doesn’t necessarily mean that they know anything about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Anyone can talk about it.

Doesn’t necessarily mean that they know anything about it.

So you can only know something about it if you’ve been there?

Really?

 

[Tom_Baum]

So let’s say there an oncologist who’s treating a patient with cancer. The oncologist has never had cancer.

Which is correct for the oncologist to say: I know that cancer is a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells…

OR

I believe that cancer a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells

If I was the patient being treated and the oncologist said to me, “I believe that cancer a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells”, I would like to get a different oncologist to treat me.

 

[PRmerger]

If I was the patient being treated and the oncologist said to me, “I believe that cancer a malignant growth or tumor resulting from the division of abnormal cells”, I would like to get a different oncologist to treat me.

Egg-zactly. So he knows something without actually having had to experience it personally.

 

[Tom_Baum]

So you can only know something about it if you’ve been there?

Really?

I, definitely, know more about hell than before I experienced hell.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Egg-zactly. So he knows something without actually having had to experience it personally.

I was taught in second grade that God Is Love and I accepted that but I did not have a clue that it was/is quite literal until I met God the Father.

I still do not know how God can be a Being of Love as opposed to Love being merely an attribute of God.

There is no way that I could have known that “God Is Love” is a literal statement without God revealing this to me.

Before meeting God, I could not honestly say that I “know” that God Is, much less say that God Is quite literally a Being of Love.

Before meeting God, I believed that God Is but I did not “know” that God Is.

By the way, the doctor knows what cancer is and knows how to attempt to treat the cancer but does not know “cancer” personally, if s/he has never had cancer, it is “head knowledge” that s/he has.

 

[PRmerger]

I, definitely, know more about hell than before I experienced hell.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Are you saying that one can only know something about hell if one has been there?

 

[PRmerger]

I was taught in second grade that God Is Love and I accepted that but I did not have a clue that it was/is quite literal until I met God the Father.

This is very Catholic.

By the way, the doctor knows what cancer is and knows how to attempt to treat the cancer but does not know “cancer” personally, if s/he has never had cancer, it is “head knowledge” that s/he has.

Egg-zactly.

Head knowledge is pretty good knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

Today’s reading from Acts 8:

Saul gave the go ahead for the stoning of St Stephen; and of course, we all know him as St Paul.

He firmly believed he was doing God’s will…

 

[GEddie]

Even if someone has had an “experience” of whatever kind, such that they “experienced Hell,” that no more means they know Hell than someone who has driven through Hell, Michigan!

Hell, the true one, is eternal and final. No-one breathing in a standard human soma has been there, the town in Michigan notwithstanding.

BTW, altered states of consciousness (such as near-death or meditation) are just as much “head knowledge” as that gained in school. Just a different part of the head!

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Nor does God need to impose any punishment on us because the way we behave determines the final outcome of our life.

The teaching of the Church is quite clear that it is not a question of having the correct beliefs:

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

It isn’t a mortal sin to be mistaken. In fact it isn’t a sin at all because we are not infallible.

Thank you for your attempt to reassure me about hell. I agree that no mentally healthy person wishes to be annihilated, but it does seem preferable to eternal torment no? Further, I appreciate that you believe that I am not evil, but I don’t think my desire to avoid hell is good enough evidence that I am not evil. What criminal desires to go to prison? How many smokers desire cancer? The desire to avoid punishment is not evidence of goodness, in my opinion. It is true that I believe I do not want to oppose the true God. I would love nothing more than to know God, to love God, and to obey God. But, I can’t believe that the truth about God is so ugly. The RCC’s teaching about God seems to me to be profoundly ugly, and I am unable to believe that hell is the final truth about the universe for me and so many of our brothers and sisters.

The dominant thought in our minds should be that God doesn’t want anyone to be in hell. The very fact that He died for us on the Cross is enough to prove He will do everything in His power to lead us to heaven. It is entirely up to us to accept or reject His love. What we think we believe is less important than how we live. The real test is whether we obey His command to love and help others. We should be like the thief on the cross who said:

“Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

His prayer was answered. Or the tax collector:

But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’" I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Luke 18:12-14

Jesus came to bring us hope not despair - and to heaven not hell…

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, altered states of consciousness (such as near-death or meditation) are just as much “head knowledge” as that gained in school. Just a different part of the head!

ICXC NIKA

Egg-zactly.

 

[Aloysium]

He firmly believed he was doing God’s will…

A few of the thoughts that come to mind:

• It humbles us all.
• Saul did not then know God as Love.
• If we seek to do God’s will, He will make it known to us.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

tonyrey,

The teaching of the Church is quite clear that it is not a question of having the correct beliefs:

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

It isn’t a mortal sin to be mistaken. In fact it isn’t a sin at all because we are not infallible.

Holding incorrect beliefs can be a mortal sin that dooms one to endless torment forever and ever. I of course dispute this because it makes no sense to me to say that we “choose” our beliefs, and therefore cannot be morally guilty or praiseworthy for what we cannot control. I can understand that we choose to subject ourselves to certain kinds of evidence, and we may be guilty of biased investigation or willful ignorance. But, it seems to me like we are compelled to believe that which we think is true, and likewise to disbelieve that which seems false. Question 10 in general is very illuminating and worth a read:

newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article1

You also say:

The dominant thought in our minds should be that God doesn’t want anyone to be in hell.

The obvious rejoinder: if he doesn’t want anyone to be there, and he can do anything, then why are they there? I won’t go any further into this, for fear this thread will be censored like the last one, but my question still stands. I so wish we could discuss this, but I suspect the moderators frown on a discussion of this issue.

Maybe they agree with St. Thomas:

…t is dangerous to dispute in public about the faith, in the presence of simple people, whose faith for this very reason is more firm, that they have never heard anything differing from what they believe. Hence it is not expedient for them to hear what unbelievers have to say against the faith. -Question 10, Article 7, Answer

 

[tonyrey]

Holding incorrect beliefs can be a mortal sin that dooms one to endless torment forever and ever. I of course dispute this because it makes no sense to me to say that we “choose” our beliefs, and therefore cannot be morally guilty or praiseworthy for what we cannot control. I can understand that we choose to subject ourselves to certain kinds of evidence, and we may be guilty of biased investigation or willful ignorance. But, it seems to me like we are compelled to believe that which we think is true, and likewise to disbelieve that which seems false. Question 10 in general is very illuminating and worth a read:

St Thomas makes it quite clear than genuine unbelief is not a sin and it is not culpable:

I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith… If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith,** it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment**…

The obvious rejoinder: if he doesn’t want anyone to be there, and he can do anything, then why are they there?

God can do anything reasonable. To give us power and then to withdraw it is obviously unreasonable.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Holding incorrect beliefs can be a mortal sin that dooms one to endless torment forever and ever. I of course dispute this because it makes no sense to me to say that we “choose” our beliefs, and therefore cannot be morally guilty or praiseworthy for what we cannot control. I can understand that we choose to subject ourselves to certain kinds of evidence, and we may be guilty of biased investigation or willful ignorance. But, it seems to me like we are compelled to believe that which we think is true, and likewise to disbelieve that which seems false. Question 10 in general is very illuminating and worth a read:

Fatalism is a false philosophy. It goes against our natural sense of free will.

There is no compelling argument for a fatalistic view concerning the choices we make.

Why do you persist in that view?

When we are in error, we can freely choose to discover the truth and overcome the error.

That is our obligation to ourselves, but it is a freely chosen obligation. We can freely choose to ignore our obligations to ourselves, and we can do so at our peril.

That is our choice, not God nor Nature’s.

 

[tonyrey]

He firmly believed he was doing God’s will…

I agree with the proviso that He doesn’t always make it known to us in this life because otherwise we would be infallible!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

tonyrey:

St Thomas makes it quite clear than genuine unbelief is not a sin and it is not culpable:

Yes but why not finish the quote? An unbeliever may not be guilty of unbelief, but they are punished for their other sins, at least that is how I read Aquinas here. He is saying:

1. If I truly don’t believe, it is because God is punishing me on account of original sin.
2. But, because I don’t believe, the punishment for all of my cumulative sins stands.
3. Therefore, I am on my way to eternal torment.

Even if the unbelief itself isn’t a sin directly, all my other sins, even the tiniest one, or even just original sin, are enough for God to punish me forever.

I won’t allow myself to answer the second part in detail because I do not want this valuable discussion to get wiped out by the censors. I will say that it doesn’t seem beyond the realm of reasonable possibility to have created only those free and rational creatures whom God has always known would ultimately love him, given the omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence of God.

charlemagne, you say:

Fatalism is a false philosophy. It goes against our natural sense of free will.
There is no compelling argument for a fatalistic view concerning the choices we make.
Why do you persist in that view? When we are in error, we can freely choose to discover the truth and overcome the error. That is our obligation to ourselves, but it is a freely chosen obligation. We can freely choose to ignore our obligations to ourselves, and we can do so at our peril. That is our choice, not God nor Nature’s.

I am not advocating “fatalism” but asserting that “doxastic voluntarism” is false. Look it up on google for many good discussions on the subject. I can’t think of a single philosopher who argues for the truth of “doxastic voluntarism.” That doesn’t mean it isn’t true of course, but the consensus in philosophy (a truly rare thing!!) is that we do not choose our beliefs in a similar way to how we may choose our actions. Here is a link to a brief introductory article on this subject:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

I do not dispute that we have control (to some degree) over the evidence to which we expose ourselves. I do think we have responsibility to find the truth, and that responsibility has increased dramatically for those of us who have internet access as well. However, as I have read more saints, popes, doctors, catechisms, works of apologetics, etc, I have found myself growing away from the idea that the Roman Catholic idea of God is the final truth. As I have discussed with priests, theologians, philosophers, online and face-to-face, I have a growing suspicion that the Catholic faith is mistaken about some things. The more prayer, the more thought, the more fasting and almsgiving, the louder my conscience screams “this isn’t true!” Even just having discussions with and listening to those whom the RCC would say are horrible sinners makes something deep within me revolted at the idea they’re on their way to eternal torment! Look into any human being’s eyes, even those who have done disgusting and evil things. Would you send them to be eternally tortured? I very much doubt it!

Funny enough, I take no issue with the Church’s moral teachings. (Except perhaps the idea that the truth should sometimes be hidden to protect some people’s reputations or shield “the simple” from things they “can’t handle.”) But, nonetheless, I can’t believe that her theology is correct, it is just too ugly and makes life not worth the risk, in my opinion.