P
PRmerger
Guest
What parts about God’s nature that the Bible has revealed do you believe to be true?
What parts that the Bible reveals about God’s nature do you believe to be false?
And how do you know?
- Status
What parts that the Bible reveals about God’s nature do you believe to be false?
And how do you know?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Do you think that “this magnificent altar” comes even close to what God thinks of even one human being?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not even close.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Tonyrey, we can go back and forth forever but it seems we’re getting nowhere?
- The “evils” being chosen are not “free-will” or “hell.” The evils are “hell” or “non-existence.” We could all have free will and choose heaven freely. If not, we can be annihilated. Non-existence is less evil than eternal torment. It is fine to disagree with me. Maybe my intuition is wrong. Maybe it would be worse to not exist than to be tortured forever. I literally cannot even understand what that means, but maybe it is the truth somehow. :whacky:
- OK maybe hell is a place filled with heroic free thinkers. I doubt it, based on RCC tradition. It sounds rather more unpleasant, based on the testimony of the scriptures, saints, popes, mystics, and doctors. But, maybe you’re right. I can’t prove that you are wrong. I am perfectly willing to throw out the above mentioned testimony so why shouldn’t you as well?
- Again, sure. Maybe hell is place where the most heroic, creative, and intelligent people can create their own destinies, like a Disney World for Nietzschean Supermen. Sounds like an obnoxious place, but hey, it is preferable to suffocating stink and being burned continuously by shrieking demons.
- I guess you’re saying the people in heaven shouldn’t be endlessly exposed to the Nietzschean Supermen referenced above so there has to be somewhere for them to go? Are you saying “nasty people need somewhere to go for eternity, that’s why hell is logically necessary?” The problem is that they don’t need to exist eternally. That is your belief, but it can’t be proven.
- No, this simply isn’t true, as I have demonstrated over and over. The cosmic scales of justice could be balanced with temporary punishment and/or annihilation. You assert that this is impossible but haven’t given a convincing argument for why this is the case, in my opinion. Further, if God wants to reward his obedient children with eternal heaven, so be it! I would not be “envious because he is generous.” I do not see this vast “gulf” of which you speak. Remember, “all things work for the good of those who love God.” All suffering could be reconciled by a loving God, except eternal torment, for which there can be no reconciliation or justification. Unless I’m wrong. Explain to me why the sinners in hell “deserve” it. You have tried to prove that they must be there by necessity but have failed, in my opinion.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
The usage bothers you doesn’t it? I like to bring it up and use it all the time to remind everyone that this theology is only one opinion among many. That’s right: most human beings do not believe a lick of any of this stuff. The Roman Catholic Church calls itself “universal” but it is far from it. It is a beautiful, valuable, and significant cultural contribution to the world, but “universality” is nothing more than pretense.
That’s why throwing the “Roman” around probably riles you so much. You want this to be the God of the universe’s one and only true religion, and that one little word: Roman, pulls us all back down to earth a little bit to remind us that we’re all just human beings here.
Back when I thought the RCC was God’s one and only true religion, I would have felt the same.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I neither know nor care how God created the universe. I just said “big-bang” because it is a popular theory substantiated by some amount of evidence. My point was that the RC God continues to “create” in the “eternal now” and not just in the past.
I wouldn’t go that far. God is responsible to some degree for every single thing that happens in the universe, including our DNA, the composition of our brains, and all of our life experiences. It seems like those things influence our thoughts. But, I would possibly concede that our greatest degree of freedom is inside our own minds, yes.
I am not arguing that eternal hell doesn’t exist because I don’t like it. I’m arguing that if eternal hell exists, then whatever is responsible for this universe is most certainly not God the loving father.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I like things to be stated correctly, yes.
And our host, Catholic Answers, also tries to make it clear.
Also, when people use the term “Roman Catholic” when they actually mean “the Catholic Church” it shows their ignorance.
I just pointed it out to save you some embarrassment in the future, PC.
However, if you want to continue to use it, go for it. Makes no matter to me.
It will simply show your lack of education on the matter. People will think you don’t realize that the Church isn’t only the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church, which includes the Chaldean rite, the Ruthenian rite, etc etc etc.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
Perhaps you might want to retract this statement, then, that you made, where you clearly stated that the “RCC” teaches the big bang?
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Actually, I stated precisely what the RCC does not teach. They do not teach that God created the universe “way back at the big bang” but rather that God “continuously sustains” our existence. I did not place the words correctly, and this has caused the ambiguity. I should have said:
“Further, the RCC teaches not ----] that God has created the universe [only] way back at the big bang, but that God sustains the existence of every single thing.”
The “only” is ambiguously placed. I tried to fix it but basically I’m saying the first clause of the sentence is what the RCC does not teach, and the second clause is what it does teach.
Yes, I am aware that there are 23 other liturgical and spiritual traditions within the broader “Catholic” church, however they must all acknowledge the “supremacy of the Roman Pontiff” or else they are anathematized. This makes them under the Roman control right? Further, many of these such “Roman Pontiffs” use the term “Roman Catholic Church” in their official statements when they mean “everyone under my domain.” This is getting off topic though and I don’t want this very valuable thread to be censored!
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Maybe a Being, such as you describe, did something, not “that no one goes to hell”, but has accomplished something and has told us that ALL OF THE NETHERWORD has lost ALL its power, even though it may not appear that way now.Maybe you’re right. But, I can’t understand how anyone wouldn’t be similarly “neurotically anxious” if they actually believed that any other human beings were going to be tortured in hell forever. Further, I no longer believe in eternal hell (though I’m not absolutely certain) so I have been feeling much better than previously.
Also, you’re right! I feel terrible that I can’t do too much to help anyone avoid hell. Now, if only I had perfect knowledge, limitless power, and infinite love…
Maybe this Being left little clues here and there letting us know that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against IT”.
IT being a continuation of this Being’s “work” that was planned before creation itself.
In other words, the “gates of the netherworld” have been shattered.
“With man it is IMPOSSIBLE, with God ALL things are possible”.
“When I AM lifted up, I will draw EVERYONE to Myself”.
“It is God’s Will that ALL be SAVED”.
When you pray, pray, "…Thy Kingdom come, Thy WILL be done… ".
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Tom I certainly hope so! :clapping:
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Or neither.Groeschel or Aquinas–we can certainly believe either of them.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
A full answer to this would be off-topic, and I would like to avoid the censor if possible. Suffice it to say that I believe truth is unified, so anything that contradicts reason cannot be true. Eternal hell contradicts reason, so I know at the very least what can’t be true.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Sorry, I missed this. Those qualities can be explained by the existence of a rational soul. The powers flow from the rationality and do not depend whatsoever on the soul being indestructible or lasting on to infinity. Maybe I misunderstand. This could be a genuine failure in my argument. If you can prove to me that human souls are necessarily unable to be destroyed, you might actually convince me I’m wrong about this since hell would therefore have to be eternal necessarily.
T
Techno2000
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is fanciful to suggest that out of countless billions of creatures not a single one chooses hell freely. It makes nonsense of “free will” if our destiny is a one-way street. It would be far more likely that we are like moths incapable of resisting the light.
“to be tortured” is another distortion. Who would choose to be tortured without any incentive? You imply hell is a lunatic asylum!
Free thinkers are no more likely to be in hell than self-righteous hypocrites. It is** how people choose to live **that determines their final destination **not what they choose to believe. **All the testimony in the world doesn’t change the teaching of Christ that we alone are responsible for how we behave and receive what we deserve.
Christ used vivid images rather than abstract logic to warn everyone of the atrocities of which we are capable if we succumb to all the temptations in life. Once we are on the slippery descent to corruption and exploitation it is only too easy to become a slave to our desires and ambitions. It is a profound truth that the most upright are far more likely to become the most crooked (corruptio optima pessima) but it has to communicated in vivid terms that even a child can understand. A description of the harsh reality of evil and its consequences is not something that should be ridiculed and replaced with a mild remark like “You mustn’t be naughty otherwise you won’t have anything nice”. On the other hand “suffocating stink and being burned continuously by shrieking demons” is not the language Jesus used. He simply said - and much more effectively:
I have pointed out that God is the Creator not the Destroyer and He is certainly not inconsistent. To create and then destroy is a sign of lunacy not love. As Lear said, “Reason not the need”.** We don’t need to exist at all**. Life is a luxury not a necessity but once we have it we have the right to retain it. Our powers of insight and self-control are supernatural gifts that distinguish us from animals and not as ephemeral as natural qualities. Our ability to reject God’s love is an indication that we are immortal and not created for a few years on this planet. Only a monster would rescind the decision to allow us to be united forever to those we love or compel us to co-exist with those who reject us. The most reasonable interpretation of life is that at the spiritual and psychological levels** we all obtain exactly what we deserve** - in accordance with the Indian doctrine of Karma and the Greek concept of Nemesis - **and what we desire more than anything else. **
You need to explain precisely** how** God can reconcile everyone without interfering with their autonomy. It sounds like a pipe dream that doesn’t correspond to authentic independence and without evidence there is no reason to believe it is feasible.** All things are possible for God but not those that defeat the purpose for which He created us**. Sartre was right in his view that if we are not free and not committed we are not persons. Hell isn’t just a question of what we deserve but also a question of what we desire more than anything else. It is absurd to ask or expect more than that…
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think I have explained why we are indestructible:
God is the Creator not the Destroyer and He is certainly not inconsistent. To create and then destroy is a sign of lunacy not love. As Lear said, “Reason not the need”.** We don’t need to exist at all**. Life is a luxury not a necessity but once we have it we have the right to retain it. Our powers of insight and self-control are supernatural gifts that distinguish us from animals and not as ephemeral as natural qualities. Our ability to reject God’s love is an indication that we are immortal and not created for a few years on this planet. Only a monster would rescind the decision to allow us to be united forever to those we love or compel us to co-exist with those who reject us. The most reasonable interpretation of life is that at the spiritual and psychological levels** we all obtain exactly what we deserve** - in accordance with the Indian doctrine of Karma and the Greek concept of Nemesis - **and what we desire more than anything else. **
I would like to add that many people want to die but no one wants to disappear utterly. Not to be able to find a single reason for existing is absurd in view of the countless opportunities that absolute freedom offers us. It amounts to total negativity of which it is impossible to find an example in the history of mankind - unless it was a case of insanity. And even then there is no evidence that it was more than a temporary state of mind. The existence of mental energy implies that it needs activity to be fulfilled. What possible reason could there to reject every aspect of one’s personality? It implies that everything is detestable - which is clearly false and a symptom of an unbalanced mind.
B
Bradski
Guest
How else do you tell? If you have two people in front of you then I’m sure you would say that they are both equal in God’s eyes. As Tom said:
They are also both equal in the eyes of the law. That is, they are to be treated equally, despite the fact that one spends his life in charitable work and the other is a wife beating drug dealer. But if I look at the actions of the two men, then yes, I am in no doubt that one is more worthy than the other. I’m sure you know which one I’d choose and that is because you go through the same process as I do in determining worth.
I’m not in a position to determine his punishment or to meet out justice. In any case, I think that allowing him to fall off a cliff is a punishment that greatly exceeds his crime. A custodial sentence perhaps. I think most people would concur. Although I believe you thought he should be tortured incessantly for eternity. Seems a little harsh…
You can’t be using the same definition as me. I’ll go with the first one I Googled which is: ‘the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect’.
As I said earlier, dignity is something that has to be earned. You have to exhibit certain characteristics before you earn the description. ‘He talked with great dignity’, ‘she was treated with the dignity she deserved’, ‘he acted in a dignified manner’. You can also lose it: ‘He acted in an undignified manner’.
There is a case for saying that we all have an inherent dignity, which is to say that we should all be treated with respect…unless we give cause for that not to be the case. But it’s not reasonable to suggest that a baby can act in a dignified manner. Which is the way I am using the term.
As your friend’s wife-beating grandfather, he has not acted with dignity and does therefore not deserve to be treated with dignity.
I measure it from the only facts I know about them. That they chose to serve their country and died in that service.
I’ll pass, thanks. I’m not prepared to compare the relationship I have with my family and friends with toys. You can skip on my questions as well, if you like. But you can answer the one about Bryant. If you were his potential mother and you knew, without any doubt whatsoever, the outcome should you have a son, would you still have him?
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
This story is devastating! I hope and pray that this isn’t the truth about reality. May the true God deliver us all from such a terrible fate!
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I’m sorry but I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I agree with you that no one would choose to be tortured, yet the consensus among popes, councils, saints, doctors, mystics, and visionaries is that hell is a place of profound torment. Just read the link posted by Techno2000 for details.
You say that people choose hell, so therefore people choose torture. Yes, that is insane! And yet, it seems like you are suggesting this is the case. I think they are choosing sin, and that eternal torment is the punishment attached to the sin. If people could sin and get away with it, they would. Right? I don’t think that is fair either. But eternal torment can’t be fair in and of itself.
Yes I agree. Our existence is totally “contingent” upon God at all times. We are by no means necessary beings. This is precisely why we can be annihilated without any trouble at all. God doesn’t have to “destroy” us, he simply has to “let go” and cease to sustain our being. That doesn’t mean he is a “destroyer” anymore than it means he is a “destroyer” for failing to create unicorns and fairies.
You say we have the “right” to retain our lives (by this I take you to mean existence). Says who? If God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and the ground of all being, to which court can we appeal our “rights?” Where does God say “you have the right to exist?” You yourself just said that existence is a “luxury.” Some would call it a “gift.” Does it make sense to demand a “right” to a “gift?” This doesn’t mean murder is OK, but it does seem to make it OK for God to let go of our existence.
Let’s just get some agreement here: is hell a place of eternal conscious torment? Yes or No?
How you respond will determine how I will be able to respond. I am still unclear about your position. Sorry but I seem to need things to be spelled out.
- Status