Socrates said that no harm can come to a good man, even though he was a victim of an unjust death. He understood that the evil that can occur to us is nothing compared to the evil that we can become. Thus true pain and suffering is what happens to the real us, our soul, the evil we become. What happens to our mortal bodies is secondary. That is my perspective and understanding.
We spend our lives choosing one way or the other.
I cannot answer why someone would choose that.
God has extended his mercy to those that really need it.
No, they build upon each other.
You will have to prove your speculation concerning automotons in heaven before you can expect anyone to take the question seriously.
Agreed. Your logic needs to be cleaned up.
Nonsense. If you would say that committing “sin” leads to hell, at least you make a clear observation. I would not agree, but at least you would not equivocate. By the same token, you could say that by committing a crime, the criminal “chooses” prison. I have seen this idiocy before.
No one needs that “mercy” more than the ones who are in hell.
Not “my” speculation. Ask those who insist that in heaven there can be no sin. Ask those who say that without the ability to commit sin there can be no free will. Ask those who say that without free will we are mere automatons. As a matter of fact, ask yourself.
Wow. Prove it. Give me a few examples where my position changed from “moment to moment”. So far I was patient. Not any more. Put up or shut up.
And it is especially poignant that they are also the ones that reject the mercy forever.
So you wish us to make the same wild conclusion that you have with no evidence. That a choice not made is really a choice that they do not have?
I do not wish to dredge up old threads that were obviously very difficult for you.
You don’t know that. It is sheer speculation.
Cool. So you say that people could choose to “sin” in heaven, but simply do not want to - and they still have their free will. That is an acceptable conclusion. Now, if that is possible in heaven, it is possible in this existence, too. God could “choose” to create only such people - if, of course God has free will.
Right?Nonsense. I do not abandon thereads, but I certainly do not care to answer nonsensical posts. Since there were no posts to consider, I wait until there might be some. You have to bring up two posts, where I posited something contradictory.
No, it has been told me by very reliable sources that I trust.
God has provided examples of people that have gone without sin.
God could choose to make people without free will. But that is not what he wanted to do.God could “choose” to create only such people - if, of course God has free will.
Look, I understand the reference to the previously abandoned thread may be painful.
That is your problem, not mine. The “church” is speculating, too. How would the “church” know that everyone in hell is “happy” about being tortured forever and not one of them ever repents? In 1984 Winston Smith eventually “repented”, and “He loved Big Brother”. He made himself to love Big Brother. And he was only tortured for a limited time, not “forever”. And to use a real life example. The Inquisition tortured the poor “witches” until they repented their “sins”. Only then, when they repented were they handed over to the temporal authorities, who then burned them. People do not like to be tortured. They will do everything to stop the pain. They will confess and repent.
Red herring. I am asking about one specific unsubstantiated belief, not “everything”.
Excellent! So why didn’t he use the “good” prototype for everyone, who has been created? Didn’t those people have free will?
If God only created the “good people”, the church would not be necessary.
Nonsense. Don’t those “good people” have free will?
Painful? You are kidding. You made an accusation. I demand your evidence. Bring up at least two posts, where I said contradictory things. I made errors before, and I was grateful to those people who pointed them out to me. We all can make mistakes, and there is nothing wrong to point them out. But sheer accusation just will not do.
The comparison of church as ‘big brother’ I find to be insulting.
Not a red herring at all. It falls perfectly in line to the direction you have taken us in. You object to the speculation and indicate it a problem that I accept the word of an authority when I do not have specific practical knowledge.
It is a flawed premise that God made ‘good people’
Again, the premise is flawed.
I cannot answer that. The premise is flawed. See the response above.
Why just two posts when the entire thread will do?
It is your problem that you don’t even understand the analogy. The point is that the church has no additional information, it is just speculating about the people in hell.
The trouble is not the acceptance of some real authority. The problem is that this so-called “authority” is simply speculating.
Nonsense. Not all people are “made” the same. You have a lot to learn about inherited and acquired traits.
Trying to wiggle out? Typical. Get the specifics, if you can.
Having read through only a small part of the huge volumes available on the topic, I find it very difficult to believe you.The point is that the church has no additional information, it is just speculating about the people in hell.
The trouble is not the acceptance of some real authority. The problem is that this so-called “authority” is simply speculating.
All men are made in the image of God.
Really? Where can I sign up for a guided tour into heaven and hell? I have a video camera, and can bring back a really “first hand” proof.
It is indeed a fact that the church teaches that speculation. And, of course even if one accepts that speculation as “fact”, it does not follow that everyone is created with the same characteristics. There are people who have a good disposition toward others and there are sociopaths. No one “chooses” his own disposition, no matter what you think the church teaches.
As you put it so colloquially earlier…put up or shut up.
How cute. You stated first that it is a fact that God created all men in his image (and therefore everyone is the “same”). Don’t you think that you should give a proof of that assertion before you ask me? Or do the rules of debate only apply to me, and not to you? At least be somewhat consistent. And referring to some self-proclaimed “autority” is not a proof.
Yes, I accept the teachings of the Catholic church as fact.
You do not really wish a first hand experience of hell.
That is your business. But that does not mean anything to anyone else. You stipulated that people never want to repent in hell. If you have actual evidence for it, then present it. If your “evidence” is that the church teaches that, then your “evidence” carries no weight.
Ever since when did the name of a forum lend credence to posts?
Wiggling out again?
Why not? You said that some people had a “tour” in hell, and they came back unscathed. I simply want to see for myself. Same with heaven, so I can make an informed decision.
No, I did not.
Not at all.
Truth is truth.
The phrase “first hand account” means that someone has been there and returned. A “vision” is not a “first hand account”. It could be just a bad dream or a nightmare, due to some hard-to-digest dinner. I am willing to take the risk of being “scathed” by the experience. So where is the tourist agency?
If there is an unsupported assertion, all I have to do is point out that it is unsupported. And I did that.
I agree. So all you have to do is show that whatever you consider “truth” is really the “truth”. And that is your burden.
Interesting that you should make the reference.