The Fear of Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradski said:
It came up in context. In fact, it’s quite pertinent. Do you have a son knowing that he will go to hell. Obviously we don’t have omniscience - but that’s what hypotheticals are about. There doesn’t have to be a fat man and a trolley for those type of questions to work.

But I will admit the question is loaded and personally, I can’t see a way to answer it myself without involving some degree of culpability. The fact that is hasn’t been answered appears to confirm this.
Click to expand...
Knowledge of what people will do has no effect on what they will choose to do nor does it affect their ultimate destiny. God is responsible for free will but without free will no one could accuse God of being culpable. And to accuse God of some degree of culpability implies that one knows how to create a better world - which is absurd…
 
PRmerger said:
To choose evil knowing it inevitably leads to suffering is equivalent to choosing self-inflicted torture.
Click to expand...
Your objection is undermined by the fact that our destiny is not determined solely by what we choose to do** in this world**. It is the teaching of the Church that we are given the opportunity to make our final decision when we die. Then there is no such thing as ignorance of what we should have done or should do. Hell is not a trap but a choice…
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Knowledge of what people will do has no effect on what they will choose to do nor does it affect their ultimate destiny.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But as a father you have a choice whether to bring a son into the world or not. If you know as a fact that his life will bring nothing but misery to so many, a life with no redeeming features whatsoever, a life that will in fact result in your own death, do you still choose to have a child?
 
tonyrey said:
Your objection is undermined…
Click to expand...
I didn’t make an objection. I made a suggestion.

Why is it that we are not given a definitive idea of what hell is like, rather all these personal opinions and visions and nonsensical reports of day trips there and back?
 
Bradski said:
Agreed. But as a father you have a choice whether to bring a son into the world or not. If you know as a fact that his life will bring nothing but misery to so many, a life with no redeeming features whatsoever, a life that will in fact result in your own death, do you still choose to have a child?
Click to expand...
It is becoming clear to me that some people are intellectually blind.
How would one ever know a life would be nothing but misery if that life did not exist?
Once it exists, it exists.
Once the choices have been made, they have been made.
This is so simple.
God in His omnipotence and omniscience creates gods, who participate in their own creation, that they may share in the Love that is the Godhead.
We have chosen otherwise and that is why we are in this temporary state of misery, during which time we have the opportunity to be saved.
I have come to believe that the reason this cannot be known outside a relationship with God, is that the knowledge itself is useless. It is all about love.
 
Aloysium said:
It is becoming clear to me that some people are intellectually blind.
How would one ever know a life would be nothing but misery if that life did not exist?
Once it exists, it exists.
Once the choices have been made, they have been made.
This is so simple.
God in His omnipotence and omniscience creates gods, who participate in their own creation, that they may share in the Love that is the Godhead.
We have chosen otherwise and that is why we are in this temporary state of misery, during which time we have the opportunity to be saved.
I have come to believe that the reason this cannot be known outside a relationship with God, is that the knowledge itself is useless. It is all about love.
Click to expand...
You’re saying that the knowledge of God is esoteric then? Only for special people (those who have the kind of relationship with God that you have) and not available to anyone who wants to know the truth? Are you saying God is guilty of general omission? This is a common belief among world religions, but most of the Judeo-Christian based religions seem to be exoteric in nature.

You are correct, it is impossible for any human being to know what a life will be like in total. However, God is in the “eternal now” and his knowledge encompasses not only what is happening but also what would have happened. Yes, I am stating a form of Molinism here, and I believe that this position is the only way to salvage God’s omniscience. Google all of this stuff, there isn’t time here to explain it all.

This is precisely why God is guilty: he has full knowledge of the consequences of his creative act, and he is solely responsible for that creation in the first place. It is a matter for debate whether he could have avoided creating, or whether he can annihilate, but it would seem like God would not be omnipotent if he creates by necessity or if our souls cannot be annihilated by necessity.

In my experience of argument and discussion, I have found that accusing others of “intellectual blindness” isn’t such a helpful way to produce truth.
 
tonyrey said:
Your objection is undermined by the fact that our destiny is not determined solely by what we choose to do** in this world**. It is the teaching of the Church that we are given the opportunity to make our final decision when we die. Then there is no such thing as ignorance of what we should have done or should do. Hell is not a trap but a choice…
Click to expand...
Tonrey,

If this is true, that we will be faced with the reality of God himself after we die, and he will allow us to make a final choice with full knowledge of the consequences, then it would seem next to impossible for anyone to be in hell. If hell is truly not a vicious trap but an honest choice, then this would seriously blunt the force of the “argument from hell.”

I’m going to need you to cite your source though, and it is going to need to have enough weight to balance out or cancel the grim chorus of saints, popes, doctors, councils, proclamations, edicts, treatises, mystics, and visionaries who say otherwise.
 
Aloysium said:
It is becoming clear to me that some people are intellectually blind. How would one ever know a life would be nothing but misery if that life did not exist?
Click to expand...
You would know because it is a condition of the hypothetical question. It is a prerequisite of hypotheticals that one makes suppositions and proposes scenarios that are not necessarily reflections of actual situations.

However, in this case we are talking about a hypothetical question that involves someone who was a bully as a child, tortured animals as a youngster, is strongly suspected of killing both the woman with whom he was living and also his own father and who murdered 35 men, women, children and babies. If you can find any redeeming features of his life, then let me know.

So not only do we have a proposed hypothetical we also have documented evidence that this life brought nothing but misery, anguish, despair and death to many.

The question stands. You are under no obligation to answer it but proffering facile arguments for not doing so speaks for itself.
 
oldcelt said:
What I have argued many times. One cannot create with infallible foreknow;ledge and escape all responsibility. Add in the preordination of all future events and we all know what we have…no free will.
Click to expand...
oldcelt, I am sympathetic to your position but I don’t think God’s perfect knowledge and preordination of future events necessarily implies that we do not have any free will although I will admit that we don’t have the kind of libertarian free will that the proponents of eternal hell need to exonerate God from the worst of crimes against humanity.

I think that your assertion is fundamentally true though: we can’t say that God has no responsibility for hell (given the RCC’s traditional positions on grace, freedom, sin, and knowledge.)
 
Matthew 12:37 NIV

“For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

That is why words matter. 👍
 
Bradski said:
I have to say she is well spoken for someone who is being tortured. ‘Would that I could now…’ ? I don’t know anyone who speaks like that unless it’s a BBC period production and maybe Hugh Grant is saying it after being turned down by Emma Thompson (read it again with him in mind – it fits remarkably well). With a little editing you could write it in iambic pentameter. Almost Shakespearean. Why don’t we all try it out loud. But for a realistic rendering, dip your hand into some boiling water and keep it there while you recite it.

I guess we can draw some conclusions from this. Maybe hell isn’t as painful as it has been made out to be. Mildly uncomfortable at worst, if the above is to be treated as reasonably accurate. Or perhaps we get time out to attend visions (very Pythonesque scenarios present themselves here). Or maybe, just maybe, somebody made it up
Click to expand...
I lol’ed at this :tiphat:

Again, we need a laughter emoticon here on this forum!

Thank you for bringing some levity to this truly horrific discussion.
 
PRmerger said:
Egg-zactly! You got it!

God’s Thoughts sustain our universe, but we are responsible for our own actions.

BINGO! Yes!!! :dancing::extrahappy:

Whatever is responsible for the universe of hell is most certainly not God, but our free will.
Click to expand...
PRmerger,

We need to be very precise with our terms in this discussion, because the slightest change could either exonerate God or make him appear as a vicious, torturing, cosmic dictator. (What that says about our theology speaks for itself, in my opinion).

Anyway, we are responsible for our actions only partially if God is sovereign. We are also in no way responsible for our own existence. Libertarian free will (of the kind which may potentially fully exonerate God) is incompatible with Roman Catholicism. You cannot hold both, in my opinion.

Hell is not its own universe or potential reality, but allegedly a part of this reality. Heaven, Hell, and time are a package deal, at least according to RCC theology. I’m alleging that if hell is eternal, it is deeply unjust and therefore whatever is responsible for this universe is most certainly not a loving father. You must refute at least part of this. You could say:
  1. Hell is not so bad, and therefore just and proportional (tonyrey has attempted this)
  2. Hell is necessary (God is not free to have done otherwise) (tonyrey has also attempted this)
  3. God has nothing to do with hell at all (it seems you have attempted this)
I think tonyrey may be on the way to potentially proving #1. But, in order for you to prove #3, you need to show that libertarian free will exists, that God does not have knowledge of future conditionals, and that “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” doesn’t imply that God is the “preparer.”
 
PumpkinCookie said:
This is precisely why God is guilty: he has full knowledge of the consequences of his creative act, and he is solely responsible for that creation in the first place.
Click to expand...
And God is guilty of giving people eternal bliss in Heaven too. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
It is fair because no one is compelled to punish themselves.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that if I go to hell, I will be able to stop punishing myself if I get tired of it or decide that I’ve had enough and want to go to heaven?
tonyrey said:
They know full well what they are doing and are prepared to pay the price. God doesn’t even come into the picture because they alone are entirely responsible for their decision.
Click to expand...
Oh but tonyrey, I don’t know what I’m doing. According to the RCC, I’m on my way to hell since my unbelief is grave matter. You have disputed this, but it seems like a clear reading of apostasy. I’m an apostate my friend! I can’t help it, but right now hell opens its maw wide for me…except I can’t even believe that anyway. I don’t want to pay that price (if it exists)! If it turns out I’m wrong, I will gladly repent, but as-is, I just can’t believe.
tonyrey said:
It amounts to destruction because God created us for love and happiness of which we deprive ourselves.
Click to expand...
OK, but how much more destructive then is eternal hell? To keep us alive forever and ever just so we can never achieve our purpose. That seems worse than being blotted out.
tonyrey said:
Might is not right! Power does not justify any form of destruction, let alone annihilation. To create us entails responsibility towards us especially when the motive is love. The Creator incurs an obligation to respect our existence and our decisions even though they are against His Will and separate us from life with Him in heaven. To destroy us would amount to rejecting Himself because we are made in His image and likeness.
It is a facile solution that doesn’t correspond to the purpose of giving us free will.
Click to expand...
Actually, the RCC does insist that might=right with respect to God’s nature. They just express it differently. They say God is “perfectly simple” and that his supposed attributes are co-identical. This would mean that is divine power = his divine justice. He allegedly is power, justice, truth, love, etc.

I think it is interesting that you intuit God’s responsibility to his creation. I have a similar intuition. The question is to what extent and which duties God is bound.

So you’re saying that to annihilate us or let us slip out of existence would be “rejecting himself” but to allow us to torture ourselves forever isn’t? Why not?
tonyrey said:
To be precise, hell is not a place but a conscious state of mind which is a just punishment for one’s vices. Schadenfreude is a good example*.* It is only right that those who enjoy the suffering of others should suffer as the result of their own vicious enjoyment. Those who cheat others cheat themselves because they lose their integrity and become corrupt like poisonous, rotten fruit. Not only do those who detest others become detestable they also detest themselves because they know they are detestable. Yet they allow their lust for power and pleasure to overcome the misery it causes them. They become divided from others and also internally divided.
Click to expand...
What do you think is the just punishment for unbelief? Isn’t faith supposed to be a “gift?” What is the fitting punishment for a person from whom you have withheld a gift?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
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? :confused:
Click to expand...
First, Matthew 25:41 states that hell was originally created for Satan and his fallen comrads. Yes Salvation is for everyone, but how can you recieve a gift (gift of Adoption) if you do not accept it? Is there any Truth in a person who does not accept Truth?
John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
 
PRmerger said:
Ambiguous?

If you mean, “incorrectly”, then I accept your correction.

And let’s take this statement as you say you meant it:

“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 above is nonsensical. They are 2 phrases which are nonsequiturs.

And you are still unable to correctly articulate Catholic teaching.

The CC does indeed teach that God created the universe, at some beginning. (If it was via a “Big Bang”, the CC hasn’t asserted so…but it does teach that the universe did indeed have a beginning).
Click to expand...
There isn’t time here, and it is off-topic to discuss this, but I take the RCC to teach this:
  1. God created everything that exists at some point in time.
  2. God continuously sustains everything that exists currently.
It seems like Vatican I infallibly defined that time does not extend backward indefinitely (although Aquinas supposed it did).

My use of the word “only” is what makes the phrase ambiguous. I referred to the “big bang” because it is a popular conception of what it would be like at the beginning of space/time and matter/energy.

I mean that the RCC does not teach a kind of mechanistic or deistic creation, but rather insists that the act of creation is continuous. They don’t teach emanationism strictly speaking, but they do hold that God continuously sustains everything, and that all being flows from the ground of being (God) which sounds more similar to it than we might suppose.

God does not “topple only the first in the series of dominoes,” he carefully “topples each one” (which includes the first one of course) and it just appears to be a self-directed reaction.
 
Techno2000 said:
And God is guilty of giving people eternal bliss in Heaven too. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes that is true, but rather than blamed for his guilt we could say he should be praised for his super-abundant generosity and goodness in that case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top