The Problem of Hell

[Betterave]

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but the simple fact is that is runs contrary to your scripture, and that is why I find it arrogant. One of the criticisms that I (and others) use against organized religion is that if it were truly accurate then a majority of humanity is headed for eternal damnation. I find that idea runs counter to the concept of a fair, just, and loving God.

Okay, I want you to really pay attention: The CC cannot withstand the scrutiny of ignorant closed-minded impatient people who are not interested in finding the truth. It can withstand the scrutiny of those who are sincerely seeking the truth and are resolved to examine questions patiently and honestly (i.e., with due diligence). It is very easy to make a snap judgement, not so easy to genuinely understand. You’ll never get past the snap judgment stage if you aren’t willing to slow down and address one issue at a time. Sound good?

Then you come along with your invincible ignorance clause. Which states, if I understand it correctly, that even though it’s a requirement to believe in God and to believe in Jesus to enter heaven, if some random human, through no fault of their own, is born, lives, and dies without ever even hearing about Jesus then their lack of belief is irrelevant.

The problem is, on what is that statement based?

A literal interpretation of scripture leaves NO room for variance.

To wit: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

It does not say ‘except those who have never heard of me’. It does not say ‘except for those who HAVE heard of me, but studied the matter and reasonably rejected the teachings’.

Let’s start with this, and please try not to get ahead of yourself: You quote one verse from the Bible and draw a big conclusion from it which obviously does not necessarily follow (if you are familiar with logical fallacies, your argument is called an argument from ignorance or an appeal to ignorance - google it if you need to). Have you read the whole Bible? What makes you think you know what the literal interpretation should be? (I have read the whole thing and you have given multiple interpretations of the so-called ‘literal’ word that I am quite certain are unfounded.)

 

[rvilbig]

As for my interesting claim (that if we are nothing more than walking talking chemical reactions with no existence after physical death we’ll never know it), it seems a no brainer to me. If our consciousness ceases to exist at death, it can’t know that it doesn’t exist.

First recognize that mind is not matter. A good thought experiment on this is the Chinese Brain argument. Neurons, which are syntactic (on or off), are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics (meaning), as John Searle argued. Hence, the mind is immaterial and does not pass away when the matter of the human brain loses its form (at death).

Furthermore, Catholics argue that the soul is the form of the brain, that which brings its potencies to act. This is entirely reasonable in modern neuroscience, as Roger Penrose has pointed out:

“With the possibility that quantum effects might indeed trigger much larger activities within the brain, some people have expressed the hope that, in such circumstances, quantum indeterminacy might be what provides an opening for the mind to influence the physical brain. Here, a dualistic viewpoint [of mind and matter] would be likely to be adopted, either explicitly or implicitly. Perhaps the ‘free will’ of an ‘external mind’ might be able to influence the quantum choices that actually result from such non-deterministic processes. On this view, it is presumably through the action of quantum theory’s [wave-function collapse] that the dualist’s “mind-stuff” would have its influence on the behaviour of the brain” (Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, page 349)

Now since the soul is a form, it has a final cause, as do all forms; that is, its reason for existence. The human soul’s final cause is to know truth, which is to know God, as Edward Fesser has written:

A plant is ordered toward taking in nutrients, growing and reproducing itself; those are the ends nature has given it. An animal has these ends too, along with the ends entialed by its distinctive powers of sensation and locomotion … Now a human being has all of these ends too, but on top of them he has the ends or final causes entailed by being rational and having free will… [T]he intellect’s capacity to know the truth is more fully realized the deeper one’s understanding of the nature of the world and the causes underlying it. And the deepest truth about the world, as we have seen, is that it is caused and sustained in being by God. The highest fulfillment of the distinctively human power of intellect, then, is, for Aristotle and Aquinas, to know God" (The Last Superstition, p 122)

Thus the end of the human being is the Beatific vision.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[momor]

Hey, I am writing a paper on the the problem of hell and wold like to hear your opinions/ answers on this “problem”, (anihilationism): We are finite beings and therefore can only sin a finite amount. So our temporal sins can only warrant a temporal punishment. Therefore, If God is all just, then hell cannot be eternal. This annihilationist view is held by Seventh day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses. It must be admitted that this is, at least at first glance, a powerful argument. God could damn people for aeons and aeons and then annihilate them instead of damning them for eternity.

• Thanks in advance!

I think your question ignores the difference between time as we know it (linear) vs God’s time which is time outside of time. When we die we will exist in God’s time and there will be no linear progression of punishment in hell leading to anihilation. There will only be ‘now’.

 

[Seeker2010]

Okay, I want you to really pay attention: The CC cannot withstand the scrutiny of ignorant closed-minded impatient people who are not interested in finding the truth. It can withstand the scrutiny of those who are sincerely seeking the truth and are resolved to examine questions patiently and honestly (i.e., with due diligence).

OK, I’m paying close attention. But nobody is addressing my central point.

It is said that the bible is the literal ‘Word of God’. That God himself spoke to various humans over the course of history, and in some cases (as with Moses) literally dictated the words to be included, in others it was ‘God-breathed’ or ‘inspired’. But the claim is that the messages came not from the humans who wrote the words, but directly from the almighty himself. Personally, I do not believe that, but for the sake of discussion let’s not even go there, let’s assume that to be true.

Your church makes a lot of fantastical claims about things not in the bible, and it points to your CC (and other human created documents) as evidence. Things like condoms being a mortal sin. But things that are most assuredly NOT in the Bible. (Unless I missed the condom commandment.)

So, the claim is the bible is literally the word of God, not a creation of man, and that is why it is authoritative. Literally, because God said so.

But from where does the CC and other documents get their authority? How can the use of a condom be a mortal sin if it was a man, and not God who said so?

(I am using the condom merely as an example and have no real desire to debate that issue in and of itself.)

You quote one verse from the Bible and draw a big conclusion from it which obviously does not necessarily follow (if you are familiar with logical fallacies, your argument is called an argument from ignorance or an appeal to ignorance - google it if you need to).

Indeed.

Yetit is the same verse that’s been thrown in my face by countless people (including my very own mother) when I have communicated that I have questions and doubts about the Jesus story. Almost as a ‘you don’t even want to go there, son, lest you risk your very soul for asking the wrong questions’ kind of reaction.

 

[Seeker2010]

I agree, my point was if we are in fact wrong about that, we’ll never know it as our consciousness can not be aware of it’s own non-existence, and that there are only two possibilities… that our consciousness survives death, or that it does not.

 

[Betterave]

It is said that the bible is the literal ‘Word of God’. That God himself spoke to various humans over the course of history, and in some cases (as with Moses) literally dictated the words to be included,

Can you say more specifically what you’re referring to here? Just curious.

…in others it was ‘God-breathed’ or ‘inspired’. But the claim is that the messages came not from the humans who wrote the words, but directly from the almighty himself. Personally, I do not believe that, but for the sake of discussion let’s not even go there, let’s assume that to be true.

My understanding of what the Church teaches is that God inspired the writers of scripture, but that does not mean that the messages do not also come from the human writers. That is why we are required to understand the historical-cultural context of the various books of the Bible in order to understand what they are supposed to be telling us. I think your understanding of scriptural inspiration would be accurate if you are talking about the Muslim understanding, but according to the Catholic view, the various human authors do bring their own contributions to the various texts.

Your church makes a lot of fantastical claims about things not in the bible, and it points to your CC (and other human created documents) as evidence. Things like condoms being a mortal sin. But things that are most assuredly NOT in the Bible. (Unless I missed the condom commandment.)

So, the claim is the bible is literally the word of God, not a creation of man, and that is why it is authoritative. Literally, because God said so.

But from where does the CC and other documents get their authority? How can the use of a condom be a mortal sin if it was a man, and not God who said so?

(I am using the condom merely as an example and have no real desire to debate that issue in and of itself.)

Now that I’ve told you about the Catholic, as opposed to Muslim, view of scripture, what do you think? If we’re straight on that issue then we can discuss how it comes about that the Church teaches things that are not explicitly found in the Bible, and then maybe we can get around to discussing whether particular claims the Church makes are ‘fantastic’ or in fact well-justified.

Yetit is the same verse that’s been thrown in my face by countless people (including my very own mother) when I have communicated that I have questions and doubts about the Jesus story. Almost as a ‘you don’t even want to go there, son, lest you risk your very soul for asking the wrong questions’ kind of reaction.

I’ve already explained the Catholic notion of “Jesus is the (only) way” - see post 161. What is your objection?

(If you have been abused by Bible-quoters, let me assure you, I know that can happen. People have a tendency to have a hard time distinguishing sharing the gospel and simply insisting that their own opinions are the truth, sometimes just to convince themselves. Obviously you (and I) should try not to fall into that same mode of argument.)

 

[Seeker2010]

Can you say more specifically what you’re referring to here? Just curious.

Sure. My understanding is that the first five books of the bible were supposedly dictated, word for word, from God to Moses. My understanding is also that the rest of the bible is ‘God-breathed’, which I interpret to mean words of God out of the mouths of men.

If they are not (and, frankly, I don’t believe they are) then the religions founded thereon are false.

Man cannot speak for God. Either God speaks for himself, or he chooses to remain silent. Regardless, if he is not speaking for himself, any man who claims to speak for him is delusional.

I think your understanding of scriptural inspiration would be accurate if you are talking about the Muslim understanding, but according to the Catholic view, the various human authors do bring their own contributions to the various texts.

Boy, I just don’t know where you guys are coming from. It’s the word of God. Except some of it is works of men, but that doesn’t really matter as you have to follow the words of those men as if they were the words of God himself.

How do I get to the point that my instructions must be followed as if issued by God himself?

Now that I’ve told you about the Catholic, as opposed to Muslim, view of scripture, what do you think?

I think all you’ve said is that, ‘Well Muslims take a literal interpretation of scripture, but we Catholics do not’. Which is not very meaningful.

As I have repeatedly said, I believe in a creator, in ‘God’ if it’s important that he/she/it be called that, but I give no credibility to what religion has to say about him. Even if I believed in your holy book, the fact is so much of your religion isn’t even in there, and sadly a lot of it is related to sexuality. Using a condom is a mortal sin. But that’s not in the book. Masturbation is a mortal sin. That’s not in the book either, and it’s only a venial sin if it’s habitual. So if I masturbate once I’m going to hell, if I do it 1000 times I’m not. Marriage is one man and one woman. But didn’t many of the characters in the bible have polygamous marriages?

If we’re straight on that issue then we can discuss how it comes about that the Church teaches things that are not explicitly found in the Bible, and then maybe we can get around to discussing whether particular claims the Church makes are ‘fantastic’ or in fact well-justified.

Please do.

I was going to quote, and respond to your text about being abused by bible quoters, but while reflecting on it a different conversation has come to mind, and it may just come close to why I object to organized religion of any kind.

The fact is, except for no-brainer type things (as I have previously mentioned, there is not much bandwidth spent on this board with people arguing whether or not ‘Thou shall not murder’ is a reasonable restriction) when you start to get on the margin, there is considerable debate. Active, devout Catholics who have decided the church is wrong about condoms. Active, devout Christians of other denominations who have concluded that homosexuality is no big deal. Catholics who claim non-Catholics are headed for hell, no matter how pious they are. Others who hold open the possibility that Protestants (or even followers of other religions) are headed for the light.

On this very board, earlier today, when I inquired if someone at the church was in active communication with God, and if so, how,one poster replied ‘I don’t care, but I’m glad someone is.’

That’s blind faith. There is no basis for that, it’s nothing more than brainwashing. And in my experience, MOST followers of religion (all religions, in no way is that limited to yours) have nothing more than blind faith. They haven’t questioned the premises. They haven’t investigated the sources. They’ve just blindly believed what they were taught, in most cases by their parents, and have continued to ‘believe’ those teachings. And therein lies the problem.

 

[fhansen]

On this very board, earlier today, when I inquired if someone at the church was in active communication with God, and if so, how,one poster replied ‘I don’t care, but I’m glad someone is.’

That’s blind faith.

This was the exchange:

You said

Tell me, who wrote the CC? How is it that person is in possession of information and insight directly from above that the rest of us lack?

And I replied,
“Who cares? I’m glad someone is.”

That’s the *opposite *of blind faith. That’s simply the faith it takes to no longer need to ask questions like, “How is it that person is in possession of information and insight directly from above that the rest of us lack?”, a question that would’ve made sense to me at one time and a question you can’t help but ask now. But if you continue to seek God rigorously and unashamedly, you’ll not only find yourself believing more and more strongly in Him, but you’ll even, eventually, find yourself more and more in agreement with the CC on just Who He is and what He wants, much to your own surprise.

And I’ve certainly come to appreciate the fact that God has seen to it that His revelation to humankind will stay intact and uniform by ensuring that a human institution-bumbling as it may be sometimes-is led by Him in spite of themselves.

 

[Seeker2010]

But if you continue to seek God rigorously and unashamedly, you’ll not only find yourself believing more and more strongly in Him, but you’ll even, eventually, find yourself more and more in agreement with the CC on just Who He is and what He wants, much to your own surprise.

I already believe wholeheartedly in God, though I suspect you and I have different ideas of what and who God is, and in what he expects of us.

That said, it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll come to believe in the CC. While I’ll confess I don’t even know what CC stands for, any tome that finds that birth control and/or masturbation will land a soul in hell is very, very misguided.

 

[Betterave]

CC = Catholic Church
CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church (English copyright 1995, I believe)
Catechism = a summary/exposition of doctrine

 

[Betterave]

Remember that pay attention and don’t get ahead of yourself thing?

Sure. My understanding is that the first five books of the bible were supposedly dictated, word for word, from God to Moses. My understanding is also that the rest of the bible is ‘God-breathed’, which I interpret to mean words of God out of the mouths of men.

That’s interesting. Not a Catholic belief, fyi. Now what is the difference between the two modes you’re talking about here? I don’t get it. What you go on to say seems to me to indicate that you think they must be the same. Please explain (and keep in mind you’ve already misunderstood things from a Catholic perspective, so your argument thus far amounts to what is called a straw man (are you familiar with the common fallacious argument forms?)).

 

[Seeker2010]

Please explain (and keep in mind you’ve already misunderstood things from a Catholic perspective, so your argument thus far amounts to what is called a straw man (are you familiar with the common fallacious argument forms?)).

You keep analyzing my argument methods but are not really addressing my core question.

Religions claim to speak for God. To know things of a spiritual nature that others do not know. For Catholics, the bible itself claims and is believed to be the word of God. If that is true, it explains why it has authority and should be followed.

But your church goes beyond that, and declares things to be forbidden that are not mentioned in the bible at all. So I think it’s reasonable to question that, for while God certainly has the right to demand that we do or don’t do certain things, no man has that right, and no man can speak for God.

So if the catechism declares X to be forbidden, on what divine communication is that based?

 

[JohnDamian]

You keep analyzing my argument methods but are not really addressing my core question.

Religions claim to speak for God. To know things of a spiritual nature that others do not know. For Catholics, the bible itself claims and is believed to be the word of God. If that is true, it explains why it has authority and should be followed.

But your church goes beyond that, and declares things to be forbidden that are not mentioned in the bible at all. So I think it’s reasonable to question that, for while God certainly has the right to demand that we do or don’t do certain things, no man has that right, and no man can speak for God.

So if the catechism declares X to be forbidden, on what divine communication is that based?

There are three classes of revealed truth; formally & explicitly, formally & implicity, and virtually. A formally revealed one is when the revealer means to convey that truth by language to guarentee it by the authority of his word. The revelation is formal and explicit when made clear expressly, likewise; when it is formal and implicit is when it is obsqure. A truth is only virtually revealed when it is not formally guarenteed by the speaker, but inferred from something formally revealed.

An example, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are dogmas in the strictest sense when proposed or defined by the church, such are articles of the apostles truth. Truths revealed by God formally, but implicily are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the church, such for example are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception etc.

All doctrines defined by the church as contained in revelation are formally revealed. it is a dogma of the faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes.

 

[Seeker2010]

A formally revealed one is when the revealer means to convey that truth by language to guarentee it by the authority of his word.

Where has the revealer acquired his authority to reveal a truth? From where did he learn that the truth was in fact truth?

it is a dogma of the faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes.

Ah, the church is infallible because the church SAYS they’re infallible. That’s what I thought.

BTW, I can prove to you that the church is NOT infallible. Remember Galileo? Well, you may not realize that the vatican issued a formal statement regarding his nutty idea that the earth is not the center of the universe. To wit: “the proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and… heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture!”

If your church is so infallible, how come they didn’t know about the earth not being the center of the universe even before science could prove it?

 

[JohnDamian]

Where has the revealer acquired his authority to reveal a truth? From where did he learn that the truth was in fact truth?

Ah, the church is infallible because the church SAYS they’re infallible. That’s what I thought.

BTW, I can prove to you that the church is NOT infallible. Remember Galileo? Well, you may not realize that the vatican issued a formal statement regarding his nutty idea that the earth is not the center of the universe. To wit: “the proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and… heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture!”

If your church is so infallible, how come they didn’t know about the earth not being the center of the universe even before science could prove it?

The Church argued against Galileo presenting Copernican Heliocenticism as FACT. Which as we not know is false, the sun is not stationary.

Also, a common misconception is that “infallibility” is always present… Infallibility is only present in ex cathedera declarations.

 

[Seeker2010]

The Church argued against Galileo presenting Copernican Heliocenticism as FACT. Which as we not know is false, the sun is not stationary.

OK, keep trying to tell yourself they were really right all along.

Also, a common misconception is that “infallibility” is always present… Infallibility is only present in ex cathedera declarations.

Yeah. Because they claim infallibility they are infallible.

Gotcha.

 

[JohnDamian]

Yeah. Because they claim infallibility they are infallible.

Gotcha.

They are infallible because Jesus told them they were (Matt 16:19).

And they very rarely use infallible declarations, over 2000 years there has only been 5 or 6. These are for Church related stuff, not to do with physics or politics.

 

[fhansen]

They are infallible because Jesus told them they were (Matt 16:19).

And they very rarely use infallible declarations, over 2000 years there has only been 5 or 6. These are for Church related stuff, not to do with physics or politics.

Also, the Church claims to be infallible only on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

 

[Betterave]

You keep analyzing my argument methods but are not really addressing my core question.

Religions claim to speak for God. To know things of a spiritual nature that others do not know. For Catholics, the bible itself claims and is believed to be the word of God. If that is true, it explains why it has authority and should be followed.

But your church goes beyond that, and declares things to be forbidden that are not mentioned in the bible at all. So I think it’s reasonable to question that, for while God certainly has the right to demand that we do or don’t do certain things, no man has that right, and no man can speak for God.

So if the catechism declares X to be forbidden, on what divine communication is that based?

I’m guessing you don’t care about the distinction, but actually I was analyzing your argument form. Your argument method, we might say, is to repeatedly use fallacious argument forms. Just one question this time (one I’ve already asked): are you familiar with the common logical fallacies (and, obviously, why using a fallacious argument is not a good idea if you’re interested in getting at the truth)?

 

[Betterave]

That’s interesting. Not a Catholic belief, fyi. Now what is the difference between the two modes you’re talking about here? I don’t get it. What you go on to say seems to me to indicate that you think they must be the same. Please explain (and keep in mind you’ve already misunderstood things from a Catholic perspective, so your argument thus far amounts to what is called a straw man (are you familiar with the common fallacious argument forms?)).

I appreciated your saying you’re not here to disrespect the Catholic faith. But I think when you attack the faith, and then decline to respond to questions asking for you to clarify what you mean to say in that attack, that is not really being respectful. (In general it’s poor form to ignore requests for clarification of your view when you’re supposedly looking for the truth or at least for some mutual understanding in spite of disagreement about the truth.) I think if you would answer my questions, you might find that your own questions get answered quicker - assuming you’re interested in real answers. No offense, but some people here are clearly not really interested in anything but insisting on their own irrational and ill-informed opinions.